Spatial Discourses - Part I by Aly Abdelmagid

Politecnico di Milano Architecture Urban Planning Construction Engineering Laurea Magistrale (MSc) Sustainable Architecture and Landscape Design

SPATIAL DISCOURSES A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE STRATEGY

Thesis supervisor PROF. CHIARA LOCARDI Authors ALY SAMIR ELSHAFEI ABDELMAGID - 10475714 ELIF PARMAKSIZ - 10519119 GISELA BARTOLONI - 10514450 2018

I DEX ABSTRACT

008-011

INTRODUCTION

012-017

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK P A R T I

1- INDISCIPLINARITY 2- AESTHETICS OF KNOWLEDGE

023-026 026-030

PIVOTAL NOTIONS 1- FOUCAULDIAN APPROACH A- GENEALOGY B- HETEROTOPIA 2- THE SMOOTH & THE STRIATED 3- PHENOMENOLOGY A- EPISTEMOLOGY B- ONTOLOGY C- METHODOLOGY

030-031 031-032 032-035 036-039 040-043 043-046 046-050 050-055

PREPOSITIONS 1- CONTEMPORARY SPACES 2- CONTEMPORARY SCAPES LANDSCAPE [AS INFRASTRUCTURE] VIRTUALSCAPE

060-069 072-081 082-089

METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION P A R T I I

WHAT IS THE METHOD? WHY RIVERSCAPES?

102-119

WHY PARIS?

120-121

METHOD STRUCTURE

124-133

PHASE I : READING THE TERRITORY

STAGE 1 : BASIC COMPONENTS STAGE 2 : COMPONENTSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; INTERACTION STAGE 3 : INTERACTION VARIATIONS/ TIME

096-101

134-141

142-167 168-183 184-191

PHASE II: IN TO THE CITY

P A R T

STAGE 1 : COMPONENTS’ CONSTITUENTS STAGE 2 : COMPONENTS’ INTERACTION & CONSTITUENTS’ DYNAMICS PART 1 : HORIZONTAL PLANE PART 2 : VERTICAL PLANE

PHASE III: STRATEGY STRUCTURE [SPACE+] STAGE 1 : STRATEGICAL COMPONENTS STEP 1: OVERLAPPING STEP 2: SELECTION & DETECTION STEP 3: REPRESENTATION STEP 4: ARTICULATION STAGE 2: SPACE+ SYNTAX STRATEGY LAYERS PARAMETERS & DEGREES OF FREEDOM CROSSMATCHING SPATIAL INTERPRETATION CATEGORIES TYPOLOGIES OF CHANGE

I I

CONCLUSION

192-201 202-217 218-219 220-267 268-315

318-341 342-343 344-369 370-391 392-413 414-437 438-439 440-455 456-459 460-463 464-471 472-489 490-525

528-529

PAR theoretical

foundation

I 7

A STRACT This book can be categorized in different ways; It’s a provocation, in the sense that it induces critical stances. It’s an investigation, in the sense that it aims to understand, comprehend & re-define descriptions & disciplinary boundaries. It’s on one hand, a Scientific research, in the sense that; it follows a logical -step by step- investigative process. On another hand, it has a parallel narrative in which it is a Nonscientific research that it aims to acquire knowledge that is unquantifiable & subjective. It’s an illustrative book, as it proposes new ways to represent data & redraw Landscape/Architecture components. It’s an experimental approach, as its argument is -in a way- considered as a move towards uncharted territories where any kind of finding is important. The book is divided into two parts; The first part is assigned to establishing a point of departure as well as, advocating a narrative that is founded on notions & theories that have roots in a variety of disciplines & fields of study. The second part, however, is an experimental attempt to propose a structured methodology that aims to translate/ interpret the theoretical narrative into a practical one. working with different scales, tools & circumstances to try & verify, falsify or edit the structure. To do so, we have chosen to start by a set of prepositions/ claims supported by experiments, theories & notions put forward by many scholars of the field of Architecture among other related fields. Although the approach is meant to be a generic tool, to test these claims we started working on a chosen kind of landscape (Riverscape), while acknowledging that to reach a high level of certainty this method has to also be tested on other kinds of landscapes. Although the method is a combination of autonomous entities, it culminates to the creation of a strategy structure (Space+) that is a complex system with components, roles, Parameters & dynamic. “Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.” Critique of reason Immanuel Kant Finally, as mentioned earlier, this book is an investigation and the proposed method followed is experimental, which implies that the premise of the thought is not -necessarily- to give right answers but, to help ask “the right” questions & create a platform in which these questions could be answered within a wide range of understanding. 9

A tratto Questo libro può essere classificato in diversi modi; È una provocazione, nel senso che induce posizioni critiche. È un’indagine, nel senso che mira a capire, comprendere e ridefinire descrizioni e confini disciplinari. Da una parte, una ricerca scientifica, nel senso che segue un processo investigativo logico passo per passo. D’altra parte, contiene una narrativa parallela che si tratta di una ricerca non scientifica che mira ad acquisire conoscenze non quantificabili e soggettive. È un libro illustrativo, in quanto propone nuovi modi per rappresentare i dati e ridisegnare i componenti del rapporto tra Paesaggio e Architettura. È un approccio sperimentale, poiché la sua argomentazione è, in un certo senso, considerata come una mossa verso territori inesplorati in cui ogni tipo di scoperta è importante. Il libro è diviso in due parti; La prima parte è destinata a stabilire un punto di partenza e a sostenere una narrativa fondata su nozioni e teorie che hanno radici in una varietà di discipline e campi di studio. La seconda parte, tuttavia, è un tentativo sperimentale di proporre una metodologia strutturata che mira a tradurre / interpretare la narrativa teorica in una pratica, lavorare con diverse scale, strumenti e circostanze per provare e verificare, falsificare o modificare la struttura. Per fare ciò, abbiamo scelto di iniziare da una serie di preposizioni / affermazioni supportate da esperimenti, teorie e nozioni avanzate da molti studiosi del campo dell’architettura e altri campi correlati. Sebbene l’approccio sia pensato per essere uno strumento generico, per testare queste affermazioni abbiamo iniziato a lavorare su un tipo di paesaggio scelto (Riverscape), pur riconoscendo che per raggiungere un alto livello di certezza questo metodo deve essere testato anche su altri tipi di paesaggi . Sebbene il metodo sia una combinazione di entità autonome, culmina con la creazione di una struttura strategica (Space +) che è un sistema complesso con componenti, ruoli, parametri e dinamica. “Mentre il bello è limitato, il sublime è senza limiti, così che la mente in presenza del sublime, cercando di immaginare ciò che non può, prova dolore nell’insuccesso ma piacere nel contemplare l’immensità del tentativo.” Critica della ragione Immanuel Kant Infine, come accennato in precedenza, questo libro è un’indagine e il metodo proposto è sperimentale, il che implica che la premessa del pensiero non è -necessariamente- per dare risposte giuste ma, per aiutare a fare domande “giuste” e creare una piattaforma in cui queste domande possono essere risolte in un ampio spettro di comprensione. 11

I TRODUCTION The societal changes in contemporaneity that has & is still happening, the increasing human interconnection, the pace & depth of the evolution of human ways of life determined by technological innovation & the scale of anthropological & ecological transformation due to the interaction between evolutionary factors (social, cultural, economic, & technological), have had a major impact on most of the fields of study & research among which Architecture as a discipline & a practice which in itself has gone through something of a metamorphosis in recent years. The momentum of change from statism to dynamism, from permanent to ephemeral & from consuming to producing, has not just affected the way we use the space but, has proved that the entire current “practice” of our discipline is rather dysfunctional. Accordingly, this book is taking a step back from the Horace’s famous saying “don’t think, just do” to (don’t do, think first). It is no coincidence that the work we’re presenting comes at the end of the twentieth century, a period that seems to be marked by a moment of recuperation. ”Whereas the twentieth century began on a note of optimism with visions of a futuristic utopia, it ends on a note of reflection. Whereas it opened with slogans such as ‘Towards a New Architecture’, it closes with a ‘rethinking’ of architecture”.[1]

[1] Leach, N. (2010). Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

If architecture is the final manifestation of a way of thinking & If the analysis of the problems of architecture in contemporaneity could be traced to the roots, then attention needs to be focused on the thinking & considerations that inform its manifestation in the physical world. From this point of departure, we embark on a journey of questioning, investigation & experimentation. In doing so we’ve structured our work around two main activities; the intellect & the methodological interpretation. Accordingly, the book is divided into two parts where each is assigned to an activity; The first part of the book which is assigned to the intellect & entitled (Theoretical foundation) aims to establish a theoretical as well as, a philosophical narrative that is generated from examining the architecture thought & its relation to other disciplines. The second part which is assigned to the methodological interpretation & entitled (Methodology & Implementation), is an attempt to translate the narrative established in the first part by constructing an investigative method as well as an implementation structure.

“Paul Rabinow: Meaning that architecture in itself cannot resolve social problems? Michel Foucault: I think that it can and does produce positive effects when the liberating intentions of the architect coincide with the real practice of people in the exercise of their freedom. Paul Rabinow: So, once again, the intention of the architect is not the fundamental determining factor? Michel Foucault: Nothing is fundamental. That is what is interesting in the analysis of Society. That is why nothing irritates me as much as these inquiries-which are by definition metaphysical-on the foundations of power in a society or the self-institution of a society, etc. These are not fundamental phenomena . There are only reciprocal relations, and the perpetual gaps between intentions in relation to one another.” Michel Foucault in an interview with Paul Rabinow Space, Power, and Knowledge (excerpt) [2] Ranciére, Jacques, (2006). Thinking between disciplines: an aesthetics of knowledge. Paris. Parrhesia, [3] Kant, I., & Meredith, J. C. (1978). The critique of judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [4] Foucault, M., & Ewald, F. (2008). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1975-76. London: Penguin. [5] Foucault, M. (1984). Of other spaces = Heterotopias. Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité [6] Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2016). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury.

In the first part (Theoretical foundation), which commences with the philosophical foundation sector, starts not just with questioning the way architecture approaches the other disciplines but, with questioning the nature of architecture itself. We discuss how we’ve taken the stance of perceiving architecture as a discipline which is important as the investigation method moves away from deludedly trying to be critical of it objectively. Accordingly, we’ve initiated the narrative that -as a discipline- architecture fundamentally works in relation to other disciplines & fields of study, which is why we present the notion of “in-disciplinarity”[2] as a way of defining these borders that usually disciplines “go to war” trying to defend. To expand the argument to not just defining the discipline but what to expect from this investigation & the way to judge these kinds of work like the one we are presenting in this book we present Kant’s take on “Aesthetics”[3] as well as, Ranciere’s take on “Aesthetics of knowledge”[2]. With this we set up the scope through which we look at all the other notions the follow. The first of these notions is actually an approach by Michel Foucault “Foucauldian approach” that comprises a cluster of notions from which we focus on two; “Genealogy”[4] & “Heteropias”[5] as they are of great relevance to our narrative for reasons discussed extensively in the (Philosophical foundation) sector. The second is Deleuze & Guattari’s notion of “the smooth & the striated”[6] which is pivotal in our work especially for the second part of the book.

Following that, we go into Phenomenology to discuss how its discourse in addition to its Metaphysical nature is strongly related to the architectural discourse in terms of “Lived experience”[7] & in discussing Phenomenology we take Heidegger’s & Gadamer‘s accounts. With this, we terminate our Philosophical foundation sector.

[7] Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.

“The first job of the man who has a problem must be to become better acquainted with it. The way to do this is by producing an inadequate solution to the problem – a speculation – and by criticizing this. To understand a problem means, in effect, to understand its difficulties; and this cannot be done until we see why the more obvious solutions do not work Even in those cases where no satisfactory answer turns up we may learn something from this procedure.” William Bartley The second sector of the (Theoretical foundation) is (the prepositions) sector. In this sector we do what we’ve done in the sector prior, in which we setup an Architectural narrative through concepts, notions & approaches towards Landscape, Architecture & space & we discuss two prepositions; Contemporary Spaces in which we go over several accounts on matters like; What does it mean to have a contemporary scape & the matters of perception & generation of such a space[8], The re-definition of “Public space”[9] as well as, the notion of the “non spaces”[10]. After we discuss contemporary spaces, we go on to discuss another preposition which is contemporary scapes. In doing that we divide this preposition into two concepts that we go through respectively; “Landscape as infrastructure”[11] & Virtualscape, where we discuss issues of the generation, the configuration & the function of landscape & public space in the augmented age we are heading towards. With these two sectors, we finish the first part of the book (Theoretical foundation).

[8] Iacub, M. (2008). Par le trou de la serrure. Une histoire de la pudeurpublique. [Through the Keyhole: A History of Public Modesty.] Paris: Fayard.

The second part of the book (Methodology & Implementation) is focused on the spatial interpretations of the prior-mentioned foundational notions & based on those interpretations we propose a strategy structure & some abstract implementation visions. We start first by explaining what is the methodology that we are proposing, the kind of landscape & the context where we implement this methodology. Accordingly, the method is divided into three phases that are both complementary & autonomous, in each phase we work with one or two scales starting from a territorial scale & how the spatial concepts proposed change from one scale to the other.

[11] Strang, G.L. (1996) Infrastructure as Landscape [Infrastructure as Landscape, Landscape as Infrastructure].

[9] SOLÀ-MORALES, Manuel de. The Impossible Project of Public Space. in In Favour of Public Space: ten years of the European Prize for Urban Space, Barcellona, Actar, 2010. [10] AUGÉ, Marc. Nonluoghi. Introduzione a una antropologia della surmodernità. Milano, Eleuthera, 1993.

In each phase, we demonstrate both the abstract spatial interpretations of the concepts as well as, their implementation on the chosen areas of study. The first phase focuses on ways of reading the territory through basic components that we specify their properties, their behavioral tendencies & their interaction over time. Having defined these components we move on to the second phase, where we study in another scale how these components are re-interpreted within that scale & how their interactions change categorically. The investigation in the second phase is done on two levels; the mapping level or what we’ve called (the horizontal plane) & the visual perception which we’ve called (the vertical plane), investigating on both of those planes provide us with an in-depth understanding of the context as the truth never in one plane or the other but is always somewhere in-between. Finally, we arrive at the third phase which is the most complex phase out of the three phases since it deals with the generation of a strategy structure (Space+) which is a “Rhizomatic”[6] nonhierarchical system that is described through six principles. This “rhizomatic” structure functions through strategical components, these components are not just spatial components but they are in a way holistic components in the sense that they are not just described in a spatial way but, in the way that whatever occupies them is identified with together with them. This concept of subject & object negation instead their perception as one entity is based on Deleuze & Guattari’s notion -explained in the philosophical foundation sector- of “the smooth & the striated”[6].

“The space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “smooth” space of Go, as against the “striated” space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing and deterritorializing it (make the outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory; deterritorialize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…) Another justice, another movement, another space-time.” Gilles Deleuze The following steps are to establish a way of spatially interpreting the smoothness or the striation within the (Space+) & in doing so, we propose a system of parameters & degrees of freedom that are crossmatched with the components. The result of this crossmatching is then represented on a scale that is generated from a system that translates spatially the properties of each the smooth & the striated & create a range which is the scale on which each of the components is located according to the crossmatching of their entities with their parameters & degree of freedom. Since the perception of time is of pivotal to this understanding of the space this scale is not rigid but it changes categorically & typologically. Finally, we would like to note that this work is an attempt to look at things differently, understand things differently & work differently. Accordingly, the departure point is different than a regular approach. The objective of the work is not necessarily to reach a finished article but, to provoke, induce, experiment, try, succeed & fail.

References INTRODUCTION

[1] Leach, N. (2010). Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory. London: Routledge. [2] Ranciére, Jacques, (2006). Thinking between disciplines: an aesthetics of knowledge. Paris. Parrhesia, [3] Kant, I., & Meredith, J. C. (1978). The critique of judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [4] Foucault, M., & Ewald, F. (2008). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1975-76. London: Penguin. [5] Foucault, M. (1984). Of other spaces = Heterotopias. Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité [6] Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2016). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury. [7] Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: SAGE. [8] Iacub, M. (2008). Par le trou de la serrure. Une histoire de la pudeurpublique. [Through the Keyhole: A His- tory of Public Modesty.] Paris: Fayard. [9] SOLÀ-MORALES, Manuel de. The Impossible Project of Public Space. in In Favour of Public Space: ten years of the European Prize for Ur- ban Space, Barcellona, Actar, 2010. [10] AUGÉ, Marc. Nonluoghi. Introduzione a una antropologia della surmodernità. Mi- lano, Eleuthera, 1993. [11] Strang, G.L. (1996) Infra- structure as Landscape [In- frastructure as Landscape, Landscape as Infrastruc- ture].

PhILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION

Since the work that we are presenting is an attempt to explore the possibility of taking a step back & try to imagine a different narrative with a point of departure that is not strictly bound to the field of architecture with the intent to redefine core issues in the field starting with the perception of architecture as a (discipline) instead of a (profession) in our contemporary time. This approach addresses key issues that we perceive as problemetic & ambiguous. Accordingly, it starts by exploring questions concerning the discipline itself as well as, the matter of boundaries. It then moves on to examine the possibilities & impact of adopting multiple accounts of modern as well as, contemporary interpretations & notions from various disciplines & their relation to the architectural discourse. it asks what does space mean as it is understood by these different disciplines? Since the product is neither an architectural design, nor a philosophical or a sociological paper, nor is it a historical account on architecture; yet it touches all these territories; hence its complex nature. Accordingly, the objective of this work is not to design but, to explore the possibility of an alternative way of thinking. “I believe it is always important to return to the personal situation out of which one’s own thought arises, in order to clarify the theoretical problems that concern one’s self” Rhetoric as Philosophy Ernesto Grassi METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK The first thing that has to be done is creating the scope through which all the notions are going to be perceived. In this scope, we declare the stance of the authors which is pivotal to establish any kind of narrative. 1- INDISCIPLINARITY & THE POETICS OF KNOWLEDGE One of the main questions that should be asked in this stage is why do we need to work in relation with other disciplines? The answer to this question lies in the intrinsic nature of the Architecture as a “discipline” which does not have a definitive hollistic description of what it actually is, but, is described according to different fractions of other disciplines that it engages with. This imples that it is closer to a range of distictive definitions of the discipline than it is to a sole definition, which by default intails that architecture factually lies outside the realm of sciences. 23

The most common definitions of architecture which suggest that it is considered as both art & science simultaneously demonstrates clearly the problem. However, the fact that it belongs in its entirty to neither ironically, gives it a unique position of becoming a sort of a medium between the other disciplines[1]. Our position is that architecture as a discipline would benefit from a closer relation to the philosophy, not only will this “indisciplinary” relation help appropriating their concepts aesthetically,but also This would allow architecture to redefine its disciplinary boundaries & whether these boundaries are even supposed to be as rigid as they are given the nature of the discipline itself.

[2] Ranciére, Jacques, (2006). Thinking between disciplines: an aesthetics of knowledge. Paris. Parrhesia

Early in the twentieth century, Le corbusier suggested that architecture should adapt itself to fit the theories & practices of the new machine age, he commended new architectural forms, made to measure for the new technologies of mass production as well as, new urban forms made to measure the new technologies of mass transportation. This adaptation we translate as an “indisciplinary”[2] approach as described by the french philosopher Jacques Rancière, which is in contrast to interdisciplinarity, doesn’t simply step from one discipline to another. The aesthetic value of an indisciplinary work is that it’s not the sum of the values of each of the disciplines as is the case of interdisciplinarity but, rather the aesthetics of creating a bridge between the disciplines & an aesthetics of knowledge that arises from thinking between disciplines. “to speak of an aesthetic dimension of knowledge is to speak of a dimension of ignorance which divides the idea and the practice of knowledge themselves. Rancière argues that a multiplicity is crucial for the building of those bridges between disciplines. This notion of ignorance is also of great significance in this context, because on the contrary what we intuitively think that mastering two disciplines results in mastering their sum, the reality is more subtle; namely by going deeper and deeper into two disconnected territories the result is mastering neither. This is because by somehow digging in the new territory a certain ignorance about the other territory grows with it; in other words if one would be fully trained in two disciplines, one also has two ignorances about these two disciplines that come with this training.” Ahmed Elshafei A mathematical approach to architectural form

MOULIN DU GUE PARIS [2013] [FABIENNE VERDIER] 25

[3] Kant, I., & Meredith, J. C. (1978). The critique of judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ranciére explains this notion of ignorance & the bridges between disciplines. According to Rancière, the disciplines form the “an orthodoxy” on one side of the water with no possibility of opening up to another side. In the case of “Indisciplinarity” the best stance is to be in an equal distance from both, on a bridge that connects you to both sides, in contrast to interdisciplinarity, which is -as we’ve mentioned earlier- is an imposition of a discipline into another discipline. In the next part we explain in deep Kant’s account on “aesthetics”[3] which is fundamental to fully understand the stance as well as the scope that we are establishing. 2- AESTHETICS OF KNOWLEDGE To understand the relevence of “the aesthetics in knowledge” to our approach & to avoid any confusion, a confusion which is characteristic of any research done in the discipline of architecture; that is because of what we’ve mentioned earlier on how architecture is one of the least clearly defined disciplines. This is why when one does research in architecture one immediately finds oneself in another discipline’s territory be it engineering, philosophy, sociology or history; hence the importance of indisciplinarity & the aesthetics of knowledge.[1] What should be understood by the invocation of an “aesthetics of knowledge”? It is clearly not a matter of saying that the forms of knowledge must take on an aesthetic dimension. It presupposes the dimension does not have to be added as it is already there in every sense as a given of knowledge. However, It is to be seen what this entails. “To speak of an aesthetic dimension of knowledge is to speak of a dimension of ignorance” which divides the idea from the practice of knowledge.[2] Jacques Rancière’s understanding of aesthetics is that it’s not the theory of the beautiful or of art; nor is it the theory of sensibility. Aesthetics for Kant as he constructs in the (Critique of Judgment), is new type of experience. For Kant, “an aesthetic experience”[3] entails to some extent a disconnection from the constant conditions of the “sensible experience”. He describes the prior mentioned as a double negation. The object of aesthetic apprehension can only be described as “that which is neither an object of knowledge nor an object of desire”. Kant argues that beauty & the judgment of “the beautiful”[3] is not that of the object. But, with the way a subject perceives it. Moreover, that the judgment of beauty is not cognitive but aesthetic.

This is what Kant illustrates at the beginning of the (Critique of Judgment) in which he argues that an “aesthetic judgment” is free of all ends & purposes. The way Kant tried to describe aesthetics is by differentiating it from “the pleasurable” as well as from “the good”. Whereas, the pleasurable is an emotion that is necessarily interested which by default implies that it seeks some sort of gratification from the object, “the beauty is purely disinterested”; which implies that it seeks absolutely nothing from the object. Whereas, the good seeks aesthetics as means to a higher end, the beauty accepts it unconditionally as a thing in itself. This constitutes Kant’s central notion, which is that beauty is “universally subjective” since; it is an end itself & is “disinterested” therefore we must all feel it in the same way. What Kant has defined as aesthetics rests on the negation or the suspension of the normal conditions of social experience. Which means that to achieve this kind of knowledge there’s a degree of ignorance that has to be present. In short, the “aesthetic illusion”[4] demonstrates that subjects are subjected because they don’t understand how it works. And if this is the case, then it’s the system that is at fault for being based on misrecognition. This composition categorizes two kinds of knowledge; “True knowledge” is the one that liberates & “False knowledge” is the one that. The “aesthetic neutralization of knowledge” on the other hand, opposes the prior composition, considering it “too simple”. It suggests alternatively that there’s not one kind of knowledge but two & that each knowledge is associated by a certain kind “ignorances”. In addition, in between these two “knowledges” there’s one that represses & another that liberates. Similarly with the “ignorances” there’s a kind that liberates & a kind that represses that is reversal to the kind of knowledge it’s associated with.

[4] Bourdieu, P. (2004). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Here, we would like to give an example & a simple manifestation to clarify the prior mentioned problem/paradox; The use of words like “space” has a full existence & a structure in different disciplines. Now, each discipline sees “space” according to its own structure which is not negating that of the other disciplines but rather ignorant of it. That is to say that with each knowledge there is a form of ignorance intrinsic to it. We can see that in the example of the practitioners of disciplines using the concept “space”; each of them has a double “knowledges” the know-how according to each discipline & the knowledge about their social disciplinary condition.

“Taste is the faculty of judging an object or a mode of representation by the satisfaction or displeasure in a manner entirely disinterested. Is called the beautiful object of satisfaction.” The Critique of Judgement Immanuel Kant For example, as an architect you are supposed to look at space in the way dictated by your discipline & not in alternative ways coming from other disciplines, which is a form of ignorance. We can see that in Kant’s palace example: the builders of the palace posses technical knowledge and knowledge of their condition as the workers not owning the palace. Each of these two knowledges has ignorance as its reverse. He says it is a matter of belief that determine the rapport of the two knowledges and the two ignorances. Rancière follows Kant in arguing that the workers are able to assume a “disinterested” position & appreciating the beauty of the palace disregarding their social position.[1] Kant’s account on “aesthetics” is crucial to our work as it explains exactly what we’ve mentioned earlier about that this work is not meant to be means to an end but a “system” that combines several autonomous aspects that in someway resemble a sequence but most importantly, they are meant to be appreaciated individually for what “they are” not “what they are for”. In other words, “aesthetics” means, a “finality without end”, a pleasure that is “disinterested” /disconnected from every ends. Now that we have shown the importance of Kant’s aesthetics in understanding Rancière’s concept of “poetics of knowledge & working in between disciplines”[2] which was essential in understanding the aesthetic dimension of this approach & its relation to what we’ve discussed earlier with Rancière’s take on the notion of “discipline” as a demonstration of an idea of knowledge, that should be understood as the rapport between the two “knowledges” & two “ignorances”. Disciplinary thought says: we have our territory, our objects & our methods which correspond to them. which means that they are at war with allodoxy of judgment, but what they call allodoxy is in fact aesthetic dissensus, the dehiscence between the body & what it knows in the double sense of knowing; “indisciplinary thought is thus a thought which recalls the context of the war. In order to do so, it must suspend the boundaries established around disciplines that exist solely to restore their status as weapons in a dispute. 28

HELL WIEN [2011] [CONRAD JON GODLY] 29

The bringing of concepts from a discipline in their raw form & putting them in the context of another discipline with all their rigorous structures intact is what exposes this violent confrontation of disciplines’ orthodoxies.[1] What we tried to do in this approach, from the basic core idea of applying different disciplines to the architectural discourse all the way through the smallest detail; fundamental notions of sociology, science & philosophy put in the context as if they could be used as tools of architecture with all their atructural constituents without reduction re-establishes the relation between a given situation & the forms of visibility & capacities of thought which are attached to it; ”indisciplinarity”[2] creates an inbetween space in which this “relation of myth to myth is visible & thinkable”[1]. There is no assured boundary between disciplines & to trace these boundaries is to trace the boundary between those subjects who perceived not the object that is being perceived. The poetics of knowledge thus, does not claim that disciplines are false knowledge but rather ways of intervening in the war between the reasons of equality & those of inequality. With this we have declared our stance & established our scope through which the following part with pivotal notions is perceived. PIVOTAL NOTIONS 1- FOUCAULDIAN APPROACH The “foucauldian” approach, as it came to be known, is a form of discourse analysis; focusing on power structures within societies in terms of language & practice based on the works of French philosopher Michel Foucault. This approach is of great relevance to our work by focusing on the power structure dynamic in terms of space. Gavin Kendall & Gary Wickham have summarized that there are five step that constitute the “Foucauldian discourse analysis”; [5] Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: SAGE.

1- the recognition that any discourse is a structure of statements that are organized systematically. 2- that statements are created. 3- that there are things that can be written & others that cannot. 4- that statements are made within specific circumstances. 5- that practices are simultaneously material & discursive.[5]

There are a lot of Foucault’s notions that have been strongly involved in the architecture discourse like; the “panopticon”[6] , “governamentality”[7] among others, but in relation to the narrative that we are slowly constructing there are two notions that we would discuss as they are of great importance & of direct relation to the field of architecture & its discourse; “Genealogy”[8] & “Heterotopias”[9]. “The work of an intellectual is not to mould the political will of others; it is, through the analyses that he does in his own field, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re-evaluate rules and institutions and to participate in the formation of a political will (where he has his role as citizen to play).” Michel Foucault A- GENEALOGY One of the most crucial notions through which we critically overview the architectural discourse is Genealogy[8]; genealogy – historically speaking- as understood by Marxist theorists as being the ideology through which we can understand the “totality of a singular discourse”. However, this understanding of the notion shifted from singularity to focus on the alternatives. According to Nietzsche & then after Foucault “genealogy” is a way to look beyond the dominant accounts by questioning the conditions in which they developed.

[6] Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books. [7] Foucault, M., Gros, F., Ewald, F., Fontana, A., & Burchell, G. (2010). The government of self and others: Lectures at the Collège de France 19821983. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. [8] Foucault, M., & Ewald, F. (2008). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1975-76. London: Penguin. [9] Foucault, M. (1984). Of other spaces = Heterotopias. Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité

Foucault also defines genealogy as being a kind of investigation into the things that “we tend to feel are without history”. Moreover, he argues that contrary to what the term implies it’s actually neither a search for origins, nor is it a linear process, as it is a “flawed” method to understand & deconstruct “truths” arguing that if the point of departure in an investigation is “flawed”; it implies that what comes out of it is by default a fallacy. Based on that, he explains that the process of investigation should be understood as a complex pluralist approach to explore the multiplicity of “truths”.

“I try to carry out the most precise and discriminative analyses I can in order to show in what ways things change, are transformed, are displaced. When I study the mechanisms of power, I try to study their specificity […] my entire research rests upon the postulate of an absolute optimism. I do not undertake my analyses to say: look how things are, you are all trapped. I do not say such things except insofar as I consider this to permit some transformation of things. Everything I do, I do in order that it may be of use.” Michel Foucault

[10] # FOUCAULT /// Episode 7: Questioning the Heterotopology. (2015, December 18). Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://thefunambulist. net/architectural-projects/ foucault-episode-7-questioning-the-heterotopology

B- HETEROTOPIA As for the second “Fcoucauldian” concept, we would discuss the “Heterotopias”[9],. The term has been used in multiplicity by architects in the context of the discipline’s discourse, whether it is being used to the capacity of the term or a mere & shallow use of the term, in some way it’s understandable as Foucault himself have loosely defined it as he probably hasn’t considered it as one of his strongest concepts.[10] The concept “heterotopia” has been in development by Foucault over a period of time, it started in his preface of The Order of Things (1966) describing the “topos” as a metaphorical space in the language. It came to its final form in “of other space”[9] & he added a list of principles that define it. There are six principles to “other spaces” as he entitled them; 1- They are governed by specific rules bound only to this territory. 2- They have clear borders within their circumscription. 3- They can juxtapose within themselves. 4- They are circumstantial in terms time. 5- They are controlled in terms of accessibility. 6- They have specific functions within their circumscription. The kinds of examples given by Foucault to describe what is a “heterotopia”, for example; (ships, brothels, prisons & etc) demontrate that the definition arises not from the common factor between those exmples but from their difference (hetero) with the dominant space (topos). In other words, a “heterotopia” is a “relational” classification of spaces that cannot be solely done by subjects within the domian of a space except in relation to another space.

INFINITY MIRRORS LOS ANGELES [2017] [YAYOI KUSAMA] 33

“For the sailor, the ship is not an heterotopia; it is the milieu that he lives in and for which he participates to construct a norm. When he finally set foot on an island, he is experiencing this other space which establishes rules that he is not fully accustomed to. Every space is delimited and is subjected to rules, rites and norms and can therefore be considered as heterotopia from the point of view of another space.” The Funambulist Questinioning the Heterotopology

There’s an interesting twist in the examples given by Foucault, to understand it, you have to break down the components of the example; There are “other spaces” which are supposedly within a more general space that constitute the “general milieu” & that this “inclusive exclusion” is what characterizes its heterotopic condition. This implies, that there’s a kind of power exercised by the general space on the “included excluded” space. This power mentioned is not a binary situation. On the contrary, this relation is endless because, the general space that surrounds the “other space” is intself an “other space” to a bigger general space. Hence, the twist that we’ve mentioned above, in the sense that there’s no actual reference to a specific norm of a general space in which ”other spaces” are excluded from but, it’s a circumstantial “relational” situation that is essentially subjective.[10]

“We don’t live in a black and white neutral space, we don’t live […] in the rectangle of a paper sheet. We live, die and love in a squared space, cut, variegated, with bright and dark areas, with drops, steps, depressions and bumps, with some hard regions, and other crumbly, permeable, porous” (Les Hétérotopies) radio interview Michel Foucault

The idea of “heterotopic space” had an impact on the architectural discourse & how theorists understand the dynamic of “space”; one of these theorists is Edward Soja & his notion of “Thirdspace”[11]. For Soja a “thirdspace is an open-ended set of defining moments”[11] that allow radical openness in the understanding of spatiality of life. His categorization of spatiality as a “thirdspace” develops through his works. He considers Lefebvre’s theory of spatiality “Spatial triad”[12], a revolutionary form of space analysis, opposed to an “enduring epistemological presence” of the “historical imagination”[11], which persists in “defining the very nature of critical insight & interpretation” which persists in “defining the very nature of critical insight & interpretation” which tended to exclude “critical sensibility to the spatiality of social life”.[13]

[11] Soja, E. W. (2011). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso. [12] Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (2009). The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [13] Soja, E. W. (2011). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.

2- THE SMOOTH & THE STRIATED [14] Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2016). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury.

Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari titled “A Thousand Plateaus” to describe the way it should be read: The book is not structurally composed but, as Gilles Deleuze described the way the book is composed “We are writing this book as a rhizome. It is composed of plateaus. We have given it a circular form, but only for laughs. Each morning we would wake up, and each of us would ask himself what plateau he was going to tackle, writing five lines here, ten there. We had hallucinatory experiences, we watched lines leave one plateau and proceed to another like columns of tiny ants.”[14] its one plateau after another, no matter in which order. Here we will focus on one of the fourteen chapters; Chapter 14 (1440: The Smooth and the Striated), while later on in the book we focus on another chapter; Chapter 1 (The Rhizome).[14] “What interests us in operations of striation and smoothing are precisely the passages or combinations: how the forces at work within space continually striate it, and how in the course of its striation it develops other forces and emits new smooth spaces.” Gilles Deleuze A thousand plateaus Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari differentiate between two kinds of spaces: “the smooth space” & “the striated space”. This distinction is the spatial version of other distinctions that they draw in earlier chapters between “the nomadic” & “the sedentary”, “the space of the war machine” & “the space of the state apparatus”.[14] Although these two spaces are fundamentally different in terms of nature & work in different domains, they exist only in the presence of each other (in complex mixture of forms). “The primary determination of nomads is to occupy and hold a smooth space.”[14] According to Deleuze and Guattari, a smooth space is a medium which is occupied by intensities & events. It is “haptic rather than optic”, a “vectorial space rather than a metrical space”.

FULL MOON PARTY MOROCCO [2011] [ALI BERRADA] 37

A smooth space is in resemblance with a sea, steppe, ice & desert. It is the space where the nomad figure exists with all the complexity of this figure; Lifestyle that is consisting of a continuous variation of free action, In constant movement, which implies a short-term spatial experience of the space, no points of reference or invariant distances. In contrast is the metrical forms of the striated space. The smooth space is neither a homogeneous medium nor is it morphological or formal. in fact, homogeneity is a characteristic of striation as its space is limited in terms of form everywhere & in all directions. According to Deleuze and Guattari, “striation is negatively motivated by anxiety in the face of all that passes, flows, or varies and erects the constancy and eternity of an in-itself.”[14] Thus A Thousand Plateaus recounts an “extended confrontation between the smooth and the striated in which the striated progressively took hold.”[14] The striation process -in a way- is the effect of technological mediation resulting in a shift from unquantifiable qualities to mathematical quantities of a space. For Deleuze & Guattari “agriculture” is a striation process that replaces nature with nurture. [15] Focillon, H. (1992). The life of forms in art. New York: Zone Books.

In that respect, a grid would be regarded as both an emblem & a diagram of a striated space. The grid divided into; here & there, there’s & there’s not. “The metrics of striated space is indispensable for the translation of smooth multiplicity. Deleuze & Guattari argue that the way they consider a space & what occupies it not in the way of the prior containing the latter but, they are identified together. This concept brings to mind Henri Focillon’s comparison between the “system of the series” & the “system of the labyrinth” in the relation of ornament to void space.)[15] Focillon in his book (The life of forms in art) specifies two different kinds of attitudes towards the void. the “system of the series” & the “system of the labyrinth”: 1- THE SYSTEM OF THE SERIES In the system of series, the void is constrained within a system of discontinuous elements ”sharply outlined, with a stable & symmetrical space around them that protects them against unforseen metamorphosis”.[15]

2- THE SYSTEM OF THE LABYRINTH Insystem of the labyrinth, the void is cancelled. “The eye moves accross the labyrinth in confusion, and a new dimension arises which gives the illusion of movement and depth.” “The ornament seems to be shifting among different planes at different speeds”.[15] Accordingly, it is evident that Focillon’s “system of the series” represents Deleuze & Guattari’s striated space, while the “system of the labyrinth” represents their smooth space. Moreover these categories are in resemblance with Colin Rowe’s concept of “objects” in space in architectural terms.[16]

[16] Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1998). Collage city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Finally, to speak about the smooth & the striated is not only to speak about two physical manifestations but rather about one system that comprises different complex mixtures of two mediums that are only defined in relation to each other. These mediums have different realities that each of them construct which implies that subjects are not included within these mediums but, they are identified together with the medium they occupy as different forms of the same reality eg; (the nomad & the desert). “The nomad has a territory; he follows customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a consequence. To begin with, although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo.” Gilles Deleuze A thousand plateaus

[17] Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.

3- PHENOMENOLOGY In this part, we discuss one of the most influential philosophical notions that had & still have a great impact on different fields of study including architecture “as a lived experience”(Erlebnis)[17]. We begin with a brief introduction to phenomenology. In addition, we explore two relevant aspects/disciplines within phenomenology; the ontological, the epistemological & the methodological approach to both. Finally, we discuss the phenomenological take on space as a given factor in lived experience. “when in our philosophizing we attempt to articulate a particular position, how do we proceed?,.... we do so dialectically, that is, we proceed by attempting to ascertain how, out of ideational necessity, the position we want to elaborate differs, has to differ, in key ways from other possible positions” Gary B. Madison The Ethics of Postmodernity

[18] Merleau-Ponty, M. (2015). Phenomenology of perception. London: Forgotten Books. [19] Husserl, E. (1984). The crisis of european sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

First, it’s important to understand the point of departure of the argument & what exactly prompted the notion of “phenomenology”. Philosophy has always been on the quest to question & understand the world, from Plato up until Edmund Husserl (considered as the father of phenomenology)[18], Philosophy has taken the position of a third person that is observing the world through the relation between “the subject” & “the object”. But Husserl argued that what if the problem is not the way we look at the world, instead the way we look at the way we look at the world. According to Maurice Merleau-Ponty “Phenomenology is the study of essences”[19]. Accordingly, all the main concern should be to try & find definition of essences. But is not only bound by this approach as he continues to explain “it’s also the philosophy; which puts essences back into existence” & he goes on to add that it’s neither just that but it is also “a philosophy for which the world is always ‘already there’ before reflection begins—as an inalienable presence; and all its efforts are concentrated upon re-achieving a direct and primitive contact with the world”. Finally, he ends his definition by saying that phenomenology also offers accounts on time, space & the world in terms of our experience as we live them.[19]

WANDERER ABOVE THE SEA OF FOG HAMBURG [1819] [CASPAR DAVID FRIEDRICH] 41

In (The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology), Husserl’s Phenomenological view can be perceived as an attempt to recover human experience on a very large scale achieved by the mere act of observing a phenomenon & trying to find its essence. There were two modes of philosophical inquiry up until this point to understand existence in terms of true essence which phenomenology opposed: 1. The reductionist view; conceiving the world as being only the sum of the things contained within it, where the category of the world, as such, does not exist. 2. The rationalist view; where the world as such exists beyond the realm of matter. Phenomenology approaches philosophical inquiry from a different perspective, addressing the phenomenon of the world in terms of its being the determinate for the ontological meaning of all the entities within it, and not just something which is determined by them. As Heidegger emphasizes, we always refer to things as being ”within-the-world”, this notion entails that our intuitive understanding of the world as being before the things that are present within it. In other words, we understand ourselves in terms of the world, being the ultimate frame of reference through which everything is conceived. Heidegger argues that in fact, the world is not an exterior entity but a part of the human existence. This notion of “daseins” or “being-within-the-world”[20] or “lived-world” demonstrates clearly how language & terminology have been structured around a specific understanding of the world, making it almost impossible to explain different understandings without being limited by language. Based on that, philosophers like Heidegger had to come up with complex wording structures in order not to be misconstrued. [20] Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper.

There are two disciplines within the phenomenological framework that are inter-related & there’s a procedure that works with both. Heidegger puts it “Ontology and epistemology are not two different disciplines which among others belong to philosophy. Both of them characterize philosophy itself, its object and procedure.”[20] A- Epistemology – How do you know something? Epistemologically, lived experience “Erlebnis” is –in phenomenological terms- the primary source of knowledge. However, the “non-intuitional” perspectives as a part of the “lifeworld” are also taken into account.

B- Ontology – What is reality? Ontologically, phenomenology acknowledges the foundational character of the “lifeworld”. The concept of “lifeworld” implies an epistemology in which the question of meaning is most important & the “lifeworld” is the ultimate border any cognitive approach. C- Methodology – How do you go about finding it out? Methodologically, depending on the adapted approach, there’s an oscillation between the description of human experience as lived (epistemology) & the interpretation of its meanings (ontology). These accounts on phenomenology according to epistemology, ontology & methodology respectively; are of a crucial significance to the relation & influence of phenomenology on architecture & its states; “lived experience”, “lifeworld” & “interpretation”. The next part is divided into two sectors; in the first sector, we’re going to go explain each of the three terms mentioned above. In the second sector, we’re going to manifest the relation between the prior mentioned terms & the architectural discourse with the focus on the subject’s involvement & Heidegger’s account on phenomenology along with Gadamer’s will be our scope referral on this matter. A- EPISTEMOLOGY (LIVED EXPERIENCE) To understand what epistemology means; we have first to comprehend the fact that the notion of “experience” has a central position in phenomenology. Phenomenology’s position on studying the conscious experience as it is from the first person’s point of view. According side of natural sciences, the main critic to phenomenology rests on their view of it as having an introspective approach to reality which threatens/negates objectivity. From a phenomenological perspective, the idea is not that objects being on one side & subjects being on the other side. It’s that this distinction is false in the first place. Instead, we should perceive them as inseparable. Considering the foundational role of consciousness, phenomenology conceives the human way of being as a primary task of philosophy. According to Heidegger “we can only understand the structure of reality by understanding ourselves”.[21] Consequently, the role of phenomenology is not to follow the quest of investigating the “outer” phenomena in relation to the “inner” experience. But rather question the dichotomy of subject & object in general.

[21] Heidegger, M. (2002). On time and being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

From a phenomenological perspective, there’s a kind of peculiarity that lies within the idea that there are outer & inner independent domains that originates first, from our conviction that there exists objective reality (which can be explored by science) & second, in our feeling that there is also our consciousness which -we experience- accessible only to the individual subject (an “inner phenomenon”). However, consciousness is not an inner phenomenon but the foundation of “being-there”. Phenomenology doesn’t advocate for the elimination of scientific exploration (objective), but argues that the objective world is not epistemologically foundational; instead, it points at the foundational role of human consciousness and lived experience. “If higher, theoretical cognition is to begin at all, objects belonging to the sphere in question must be intuited. Natural objects, for example, must be experienced before any theorizing about them can occur.’ Experiencing is consciousness that intuits something and values it to be actual; experiencing is intrinsically characterized as consciousness of the natural object in question and of it as the original.” Edmund Husserl Pure Phenomenology: Its Method and Its Field of Investigation [22] Gadamer, H., Weinsheimer, J., & Marshall, D. G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum.

There are two German words for experience & here we face the language dilemma that we’ve mentioned earlier: “Erlebnis” & “Erfahrung”. Erlebnis (translated as “lived experience”) gives the idea of a sole distinctive/individual kind of experience. Gadamer explains that the word “Erleben” is what means primarily “to be still alive when something happens” but, what the word is “Erlebnis” it is a kind of surplus to the meaning which adds a sense of urgency or immediacy that precedes all explicit retrospection or objectification. In other words, this variation of the word adds a time element to supposedly the same kind of experience. Gadamer explains it as “the immediacy with which something real is grasped—unlike something which one presumes to know but which is unattested by one’s own experience”. He also argues, that a lived experience is the experience that constitutes itself in memory.[22]

ART EXPERIENCE NEW YORK [1988] [MARTIN KIPPENBERGER] 45

“Lived experience is the basic epistemological category in phenomenology; it is the most fundamental source of human knowledge”. [19] Husserl emphasizes that processes of experiencing that object in the most original way, are at the lowest cognitive level. Gadamer then goes on to reflect on Husserl’s view of experience, emphasizing that the phenomenological concept of experience is expressly distinguished from the popular one. Here, the concept of experience has primarily epistemological meaning. All knowledge begins with experiencing phenomena; “this is not an obstacle, but the most fundamental condition for understanding”. [22] B- ONTOLOGY (LIFEWORLD) The concept of “lifeworld” both personal & intersubjective first introduced by Edmund Husserl; in the general sense, is described as “the horizon of all our experiences” (a background on which all things appear as meaningful). It can only be understood as a dynamic horizon in which we live & “lives with us”. There’s a mutual kind of relation between our personal ways of being & the “lifeworld”, in which it influences our ways of being at the same time that these ways induces its development. The idea of the “lifeworld” status is considered to be one of the most complicated notions in phenomenology due to what we mentioned earlier on it being both personal & intersubjective. Husserl explains that the “intersubjective” nature of the “lifeworld” comes from living with one another in which we take parts of each other’s lives. Thus in general the world exists not only for isolated humans but also for the human community. Having view before phenomenology as the science of pure consciousness, he however recognized that consciousness, even at its deepest level operates in a world of meanings & pre-judgments that are socially, culturally & historically main task of phenomenology was thus reformulated; it was not just the study of the pure consciousness and meanings of a “transcendental ego”, but the study of consciousness and meaning in “context”. In (The Crisis of European Sciences), Husserl points out a fundamental misconception of rationalism that can be traced by to Galileo’s assumption that “to be” means “to be mathematizable.” Consequently, modern science identified its aim in overcoming the ambiguity of everyday experience through the “mathematization” of nature. Accordingly, The objective perception of the world, as represented by science, has been long considered as the only authentic one. 46

He argues that science should be studied& understood in terms of its basis in human experience. As a result, there has been a dominance of natural sciences & their logical structures over other discourses, which made the humans’ place in the world more ambiguous. In Husserl’s view, the way out of the current crisis would be “to reconstruct the basis of philosophy and the intellectual life on the foundation of phenomenology. Starting from our personal engagement with the world would allow us to talk about the world in a far more universal way than science does”.

[23] Steinbock, A. J. (1995). Home and beyond: Generative phenomenology after Husserl. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Through all the above discussion there has been a recurring expression that prompts the next classification; we have been referring to the term “lifeworld” always with the priority of “the” our next point of discussion lies that as -what prompted the birth of phenomenologywe had the pre-supposition of its coherence & individuality while in fact, we should focus more on the kinds of “the” lifeworld. Anthony Steinbock argues that there are four kinds of “the” lifeworld[23]: 1- “The lifeworld as intuitable.”[19] In this sense, it’s the notion of “lifeworld” that refers to the pre-conceptual, pre-linguistic experience, a pre-scientific, immediately given world.[23] 2- “The lifeworld as a foundation of sense.”[19] In this sense, it’s the notion of “lifeworld” that supplies an intuitive basis for sciences. The meaning of the term “lifeworld” should not be perceived as an opposition to science. but as it is a human accomplishment. Therefore, it belongs to “the lifeworld”; but it shouldn’t be privileged in anyway as it is a specific kind of human activity that exists among many others. 3- “The lifeworld as the realm of subjective-relative truths.”[19] The consequence of removing science from its privileged position is that “objective truth” has no longer validity outside the lifeworld experience. In other words, the very notion of “objective truth” becomes relativized.[23] 4- “The lifeworld as an essential structure.”[19] That although the lifeworld is relative, in all its relativity, possesses a “concrete universality”, a kind of structure that all the relative components are bound to but, in itself is not relative.[23]

HEIDEGGER’S PERSPECTIVE: AUTHENTICITY & DWELLING Although Heidegger does not use the term “lifeworld,” he conceives that human beings are being born to the world of social, cultural, and historical environments, and interpret the world and the self within these contexts. Heidegger conceptualizes this relation as “being-in-the-world.” “Being-in-the-world”[21] is the foundational state of human existence. It is the very ground upon which every other determination of human being stands. Although “being-in-the- world” is a compound expression, it refers to a unitary phenomenon. “Being” (the Being of Dasein, the human existence) and “the world” are not separate entities but must be grasped together. In other words, there is no subject and object, nor is there any division between the internal and the external. Our relation to the lifeworld does not only consist in our relation to culturally, historically grounded meanings. To be human and to be in the world, in Heidegger’s view is also to be with others Being-inthe-world is thus being in an intersubjective world. Intersubjective dimension is an integral part of the background that makes world meaningful (the relationship with others can considerably influence the way we experience world). “Authenticity” and “Inauthenticity” are the grounds on which a particular human being determines its own possibilities. “Dasein” is either “authentic,” which means that one can chose & “win” oneself (fully develop one’s own potentials) or is “inauthentic,” which means “forgetting” that one can chose and “win” oneself.[21] Heidegger’s concept of “dwelling” is an extension of his understanding of the “authentic” mode of existence. The concept of authenticity provides clues to the understanding of dwelling and its conditions. Dwelling occurs not only by staying within the lifeworld, It implies an active element of creating/nurturing new objects. An essential aspect of dwelling is preserving the lifeworld in “things,” , either natural (such as landscape) or artificial (such as a building). In this process, the lifeworld is not only preserved, but also extended and enhanced with new elements. Referring specifically to the activity of building, Heidegger describes its task as “letting-dwell,” which means “presencing” & “housing” dwelling. Buildings are material expressions, a “presencing” of the meanings of lifeworld. In other words, buildings let the meanings of the lifeworld appear. 48

CHRISTINAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S WORLD NEW YORK [1948] [ANDREW WYETH] 49

At the same time, the edifices “house” dwelling, providing the physical settings where dwelling may occur. In this understanding, the act of building is not just producing effective problem-solutions, but most primarily it is incorporating the hithero-existing meanings of lifeworld into an edifice, at the same time providing room for future possibilities of a human existence. Heidegger argues that the essential task of architecture is not solely appeasing the “hunger” of houses, but satisfying man’s deepest, existential needs; it means to help us find our place in the world, to find meaning in our lives, to dwell. The activity of building helps us to gather elements of our existential space and concretize, embody them in our environment.[21] “Let us think for a while of a farmhouse in the Black Forest, which was built some two hundred years ago by the dwelling of peasants. Here the self-sufficiency of the power to let earth and heaven, divinities and mortals enter in simple oneness into things, ordered the house. It placed the farm on the wind-sheltered mountain slope looking south, among the meadows close to the spring. It gave it the wide overhanging shingle roof whose proper slope bears up under the burden of snow, and which, reaching deep down, shields the chambers against the storms of the long winter nights. It did not forget the altar corner behind the community table; it made room in its chamber for the hallowed places of childbed and the “tree of the dead”—for that is what they call a coffin there: the Totenbaum—and in this way it designed for the different generations under one roof the character of their journey through time. A craft which, itself sprung from dwelling, still uses its tools and frames as things, built the farmhouse.” Martin Heidegger On Time & Being C- METHODOLOGY (INTERPRETATION) The concept of method is fundamental to phenomenology which in itself is a concept of method. Methodology doesn’t concern itself with the “what” of the objects of philosophical research but rather the “how” of such research.[21] “The method” within the realm of phenomenology is essentially in opposition to that which is within the realm of natural sciences.

As in natural sciences, the primary goal of research is to establish similarities, regularities & conformities to general laws. The use of method here is “free from all metaphysical assumptions and remains perfectly independent of how one conceives of the phenomena that one is observing”.[24]

[24] Gadamer, H. (2014). Truth and method. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

The method (Interpretation) is not an additional procedure; it constitutes the basic structure of our being-in-the-world. When we experience a thing, we experience it as something that has already been interpreted. According to Heidegger, language (logos) can reveal what phenomena show. However, as being of language is different from the being of phenomena, language can also conceal their true being. This is why we need a method of “interrogating” language, a method that would reduce the risk of covering up phenomena. Heidegger called this method “hermeneutics”—a systematic approach to interpreting through which the authentic meaning of phenomena can be articulated. What is the relevance of these insights for architecture? Pointing out the relational nature of understanding, phenomenological hermeneutics asks for a thorough consideration & acknowledgment of the social, cultural & historical context of designed artifacts. Accordingly, the design process is not directed towards abstract objectives, but by both the “lifeworld” & the way of life of individuals within the architecture realm. The other insight extracted from “phenomenological hermeneutics” is that the intentions of the architects are not the dominant components in the meaning of an object. Consequently, any purposes or meanings that the architect ascribes to the object have a minor importance. As Gadamer emphasizes, “we understand in a different way, if we understand at all”.[24] Architects have to anticipate that the progress of time may bring out new aspects of the designed objects. Architectural artifacts should be perhaps designed with some openness, so as to provide space for a fruitful dialogue with the future. Using Gadamer’s terminology, the creation of buildings can be considered as “the fusion of horizons”[24] i.e., even though the act of making takes place in the present, it is determined by the horizon of the past & the horizon of the future possibilities.

SPACE AS A LIVED EXPERIENCE To think of the space in terms of experience is to directely bring Heidegger’s thinking about being.[21] The issue of space in relation to its users is understood in the context of “Dasein” & its involvement withing things which are ontologically determined by their availability for utilization. Things in their way of being present themselves as tools & instruments. A particular tool cannot be considered as an abstract entity; it is always referring to an instrumental totality structured with a view for utilization.[21] In Being and Time, Heidegger differentiates between two types of space: 1- World-space. World-space is an abstraction from the spatial experience of our everyday activities. It is an objectified space based on a more fundamental space of action. 2- Space of action. The space of action has two aspects: A- Region B- The spatiality of “Dasein”. Here the linguistic problem presents itself again, as our usual linguistic expressions presuppose “world-space” as if it talks about the distance between objects, people which implies a kind of metric relation. Heidegger is trying to re-describe spatial notions from a perspective of the spatial relation of “Dasein” to the things dealt with. Thus, the invention of his own terminology.[21] “Region”, is the kind of space we deal with in our everyday activities, the kind of space where, in a way, we belong. It is a “functional” space. The places we live & work have varied regions, which organize & contextualize our activities along with used “tools.” Regions determine where things have their place. A location of a particular object is not defined through abstract co-ordinates; instead, it is “referential” to the context objects & activities (use). According to Heidegger, referential functionality is not just a subjective characteristic added to the objective, “scientific” space, but an inherent, primordial feature of space itself.[21]

CONCETTO SPAZIALE (BIANCO) BARCELONA [1968] [LUCIO FONTANA] 53

To think of the space in terms of experience is to directely bring Heidegger’s thinking about being.[21] The issue of space in relation to its users is understood in the context of “Dasein” & its involvement withing things which are ontologically determined by their availability for utilization. Things in their way of being present themselves as tools & instruments. A particular tool cannot be considered as an abstract entity; it is always referring to an instrumental totality structured with The spatiality of Dasein however is by two features: “de-severance” & “directionality”. Heidegger attempts to describe spatiality as a mode of human existence, rather than counting space as separate, independent entity. De-severance describes the process of “making things available” to ourselves by “making the farness vanish” & by “bringing things close” in a sense of being engaged in something, working on something, or thinking about it. In “de-severance”, distance is not defined as an exactly measured interval. Spatial descriptions are being formulated accordingly to our spatial intuitions. We say: “It is not far to the shop, a short walk,” etc. A long, but interesting way often seems to us shorter than another one which is, in fact, shorter, but boring and more tiring.[21] We exist through acting in the world; being in relation to other people, things & places. When we walk from point A to point B, we do not simply change location in space, but we are “taking in” space in a process of spatial self-determination. Every de-serving is “directional”. It is aimed in a certain direction, which is determined by our concern, but also by a specific region. As regions determine where things belong, they coordinate our actions as well as “de-severance” & “directionality”. [21] [25] Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

In the field of architecture, Kevin Lynch was among the first to emphasize the role of human experience in perceiving space. He maintains that not only are the abstract characteristics of a space are most important, but the “mental images” people have of this space.[25] “The image is both the product of immediate sensation and of the memory of past experience, and is used to interpret information and to guide action” Kevin Lynch The image of the city

What are the consequences of phenomenological vision of space for architecture? Heidegger initiated an inverted perspective. So far space was regarded as a “container,” an “arena” for things; three-dimensional, uniform “material,” A radical shift is required.

References PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION

[1] Elshafei, Ahmed. (2014). A mathematical approach to architectural form. Paris. L’école nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais Laboratoire GSA: géométrie, structure et architecture. [2] Ranciére, Jacques, (2006). Thinking between disciplines: an aesthetics of knowledge. Paris. Parrhesia [3] Kant, I., & Meredith, J. C. (1978). The critique of judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [4] Bourdieu, P. (2004). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [5] Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: SAGE. [6]Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books. [7] Foucault, M., Gros, F., Ewald, F., Fontana, A., & Burchell, G. (2010). The government of self and others: Lectures at the Collège de France 1982-1983. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. [8] Foucault, M., & Ewald, F. (2008). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1975-76. London: Penguin. [9] Foucault, M. (1984). Of other spaces = Heterotopias. Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité [10] # FOUCAULT /// Episode 7: Questioning the Heterotopology. (2015, December 18). Retrieved April 12, 2018, from https://thefunambulist.net/architectural-projects/foucault-episode-7-questioning-the-heterotopology [11] Soja, E. W. (2011). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso. [12] Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (2009). The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [13] Soja, E. W. (2011). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.

[14] Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2016). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury. [15] Focillon, H. (1992). The life of forms in art. New York: Zone Books. [16] Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1998). Collage city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [17] Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: SAGE. [18] Merleau-Ponty, M. (2015). Phenomenology of perception. London: Forgotten Books. [19] Husserl, E. (1984). The crisis of european sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. [20] Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper. [21] Heidegger, M. (2002). On time and being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [22] Gadamer, H., Weinsheimer, J., & Marshall, D. G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum. [23] Steinbock, A. J. (1995). Home and beyond: Generative phenomenology after Husserl. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. [24] Gadamer, H. (2014). Truth and method. London: Bloomsbury Academic. [25] Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

PREPOSITIONS 1-CONTEMPORARY SPACES 2-CONTEMPORARY SCAPES

PREPOSITION 1:

CONTEMPORARY SPACES

“In a Society becoming steadily more privatized with private homes, cars, computers, offices and shopping centers, the public component of our lives is disappearing. It is more and more important to make the cities inviting, so we can meet our fellow citizens face to face and experience directly through our senses. Public life in good quality public spaces is an important part of a democratic life and a full life.” Jan Gehl [1] Iacub, M. (2008). Par le trou de la serrure. Une histoire de la pudeurpublique. [Through the Keyhole: A History of Public Modesty.] Paris: Fayard.

The spatial definition of ‘public space’ described by the field of urban sociology is; what is public is what is visible and accessible to everyone. As it is described in Iacub’s ‘Through the Keyhole. A History of Public Modesty’ the law of public space is based on this definition, when it decides on the division of what is public and what is private: what happens on the street is accessible but domestic disputes or other scenes taking place indoors are not.[1] Public spaces have become urban policy tools of a much wider and pervasive significance due to the fact that they play a vital role in cities and urban life from civic to leisure-oriented spaces or simply as functional spaces. Public spaces are potential catalysts for urban renewal. They provide revitalization for the community, as well as they, are a significant plus side of the global and inter-city competitions. Also, they are vital for more of their traditional functions as a source of amenities and connecting tissues between private spaces of the city.

[2] BOHIGAS, Oriol. Barcellona: un’esperienza urbanistica. La Città Olimpica e il fronte mare. in La città europea del XXI secolo. Lezioni di storia urbana, Milano, Skira, 2002.

As a matter of meaning of public space defined by Bohigas is “ (...) the protagonist of an urban project is public space, the place where the collective reality of the city is produced. The city is essentially its public space, provided that it is a readable space...”[2] Taking account Bohigas statement, the architectural project must fulfill a more decisive and, at the same time, a more complex role if a public space is the protagonist of the construction of urban fabric. Also, Aldo Rossi defined in his article ‘ The Architecture of the City’, that the city is a huge artifact that is constantly growing and transforming itself, and public space concept should be handled as a place of profound changes linked to the ongoing transformations of urban form.[3]

[3] Vogt, A. M. (1983). Aldo Rossi: The architecture of the City. New York: Society of Architectural Historians.

[4] SOLÀ-MORALES, Manuel de. The Impossible Project of Public Space. in In Favour of Public Space: ten years of the European Prize for Urban Space, Barcellona, Actar, 2010. 62

Manuel de Sola-Morales argues about the definition of the public spaces since new semantic definitions are necessary in order to redefine the new forms of contemporary public spaces. He states ‘all too often, the category of public space is used without taking into account the requirement of real urban quality that the term entails.”[4]

According to his statement, it is obvious that as an urban material, public spaces must be responsive to social, aesthetic and collective diversity, needs and as well as inconstancy. As it is observed nowadays, public spaces have started to lose their identity, importance, and meanings. They are almost fading away, even the distinction between square, street, and parks are losing their meaning, they transform into residues and absences of space. For those reasons, the new semantic definitions both for “public” and “space” should be defined. In the following part of the research the definition of space by Sergio Crotti, ‘to highlighting the parallel cultural descent from topoi, sites, locations, areas, surroundings and, finally, spaces, a term that denounces an extreme generality, abstractness and conceptual indeterminacy’ [5] and the argument of design of public spaces by Vittorio Gregotti ‘the new issue (...) is, on the one hand, the difficulty of identification between open space and public space, on the other hand, the reinterpretation and renovation of remaining spaces.’[6] were taken account. Up till now, the cities were built on a measured relationship between built-up spaces and their voids, denying the connections, therefore an absolute space is motionless and excluding any relations with the outside. This results in abandonment of public spaces, a separation between collective identity and forms of space that are capable of representing such an identity. According to these, it is possible to redefine public space as a place of relationships or as a relative space.

[5] CROTTI, Sergio. “Interspazi”: dai siti pubblici ai luoghi comuni. in Le architetture dello spazio pubblico: forme del passato, forme del presente, Milano, Electa, 1997. [6] GREGOTTI, Vittorio. La riqualificazione degli spazi di risulta/Re-qualifying residual spaces. in Casabella, n° 597598, Milano, 1993.

“The view of relative space proposes that it be understood as a relationship between objects which exists only because objects exist and relate to each other.” David Harvey Social Justice and the City If relational space indicates the relationship between built-up and the open spaces, it is possible to describe public space is a space that emphasizes the intrinsic relations that an object could be able to build with the surroundings in the sense that an object can be said to exist only insofar as it contains and represents within itself relationships to other objects.[7] Thanks to this definition of relational space, the concepts of SPACE and TIME are not read separately, on the contrary, they define an inseparable relationship, in the sense of the contemporary perception of constant time changes on the form and the uses of the spaces.

[7] HARVEY, David. Social Justice and the City. London, Edward Arnold ,1973.

The movement-oriented public design increasingly referred to the infrastructural systems that are connecting different places in the urban fabric with the large nodes such as stations, airports, and so on, as well as imposing structures related to production and trade of the goods. This movement indicates the notions like time, speed, seriality and reproducibility of contents. Due to the fact of the digital age also the gradual spread of mass media has effected the identity of public spaces, since the computer networks are able to break the traditional view and turn them into a virtual reality. Accordingly, it is possible to differentiate the gradual independence of virtual reality from the physical spaces and from the structures that defines them. The way we produce, travel, consume and think about space has started to change totaly on the account of unstable and constant evolving conditions derived from changes in technology and infrastructural devices which are resulting in a progressive break of spatial barriers. “The good city is one that can give public value to what is private” Mirko Zardini Designing Cities The mono-functional large voids of the urban fabric provides extraordinary opportunities to experiment new open spaces that consist new kind of relationship between solids and voids. For that reason, it is essential to establish new strategies for the establishment of public spaces which are constructed with the usage of cultural heritage and designed in relation with the contemporary cities in order not to be seen as wastes of industrial production or residual elements but as the life veins of the urban fabric that they belong to. So that, contemporary public spaces can exist as being in respect to the past, as well as being forward looking in the sense of new urban types such as, shared spaces or relational spaces that are diversified typological hybrids. [8] AUGÉ, Marc. Nonluoghi. Introduzione a una antropologia della surmodernità. Milano, Eleuthera, 1993.

The conceptual approach to the shared public space is more related with transit places like stations, airports and shopping centers or as Marc Augé calls them “non-places”. Supposedly these “non-places” are the places for social interaction, able to built new forms of urbanity and sharing.[8] However, today “non-places” are literally seen as non places, which are the large disused industrial areas, whose footprints, imprinted on the urban fabric, create discretes between urban open spaces and built-up spaces, as well as a fracture in both physical and

CURRIE PARK WEST PALM BEACH [2016] [CARLO RATTI ASSOCIATI] 65

visual spatial continuity. The role of the public space is extremely vital in the construction of the urban form, a skeleton system should be highly considered in order to hold together open spaces, relational spaces and transportation hubs and try to transform them from transit places to places of dwellings. “Nowadays, the issue is to give meaning and future through continuous modifications to the city, the territory, the existing materials, which implies a modification of our design method (...)” Bernardo Secchi Un Problema Urbano: L’occasione dei Vuoti The conventional understanding of public space is always limited with the square, as an open and external space, the crisis of this understanding is that these places traditionally established to bring together the community is shown in the transition to more introverted forms of public space. These forms of public space are the results of the recovery of abandoned industrial structures, increase of malls which are almost shifting the open public space understanding to enclosed public space. However, in particular these type of public spaces in the contemporary cities, privately owned but publicly used have interior spaces that are completely indifferent to the contexts that they belong. So that, the determination of these new types of public spaces defines a new relationship between interior and exterior, as well as new identity for the urban fabric. “The civil and architectonical richness but also the urban and morphological identity of a city is in its public spaces, related to all the places where daily life takes place, it is represented and remembered. And, perhaps, these are spaces that are, even more, neither public nor private, but both things at once. Public spaces absorbed by particular uses or private spaces taking collective function” Mirko Zardini Designing Cities Nowadays, the differentiation between public and private steadily dissolved. The boundary that seperates them from each other become almost precisely not able to be defined. This hybridization of public and private of contemporary sites is one of the possible strategies that can transform these mediums which are oftenly uncertain places into cores of collective life. 66

As Vittorio Gregotti puts into words to reestablish public means that on one hand, to transform open spaces into representative places for the community, in capacitors of symbolic meanings and values, on the other, to work according to a logic of metamorphosis of the open space with minimum actions, inserts and stratifications that are able to work on preexisting buildings.[6] The real places of comtemporary experimentantion which are the abandoned open spaces are often considered as suspended and incomplete, in a way that they become a background against which to arrange individual architectures. What is fundamental is that designing the contemporary public spaces with a strategy that inserts the role of link between constructed spaces and spaces of relationship. Transforming remaining spaces which are in relationship with the context that they belong to into shared public space, open to the city, belongs to the morphological and typological strategy of hybridization which was mentioned in the earlier parts of the research. The fabric itself is to define a system o voids, related to the disposals, on which the contemporary public space must define questions and provide answers to the existing problems of the site. Designing the disposals means that to change the approach on the concept of open space, no longer merely urban design element, but the connective tissue that is able to reunify the shortages of contemporary urban structure. This connective tissue, intended as a link between existing structures, architectural heritage and new buildings, define voids in the urban fabric as a moment of designing the public space in the contemporary city. â&#x20AC;&#x153;There is no law that allows one to be sure of achieving an urban composition. There is also no law ensuring that one writes a good book, even if it is perfect in terms of style, syntax and grammar. As a starting point we have to talk about Art. We are well aware that art is the set of means and regulated procedures that tend to a particular purpose. It implies knowledge and rules of action in its particular domain, but also a certain skill. Urban composition [or, the architecture of public space] can be perceived, to some extent, as the combination of an abstract knowledge (Science) with an applied knowledge (Art). (...) The applied knowledge requires an enlightened intervention, then, a certain talent, i.e., a gift, a skill, hopefully remarkable. Above all, requires a clear, both global and detailed visionâ&#x20AC;?. Charles Delfante The Great City History

Perhaps, nowadays more than ever, the eventual pathway to design public spaces can be as described by Charles Delfante. In our methodology we believe that it is crucial to perceive public space as fundamental urban matter. Open public spaces can yet be planned, and those that have been intervented lack of a global vision, but they can still be capable of constant changes. We believe that such worth to design of a public space can reattach the practice and disciplinary knowledge of architecture to city building and planning process which has day by day became more fragmented and uncertain from a technicali economical, political and social standpoint. Urban design and architecture should work together in the process of design synthesis which does not dispute the need to consider design and construction of contemporary public space as a result of several insights and experiences, or as an outcome of assorted interpretations. Our methodology tries to underline the appeal for a greater exaction and commitment of an architecture to those processes of synthesis, decisive in a way that senses and responds to the constant changes happening around it which will result in a contemporary public space that is dynamic, social, inclusive and grown. In this sense, we are claiming for the disciplinary assertion of architecture in the proposal of contemporary public space, so as to recover an urban design culture and methodology based on a more unitary, articulated vision of urban space. Therefore we are trying to overcome in our methodology the distorted approach which is urban proposal and intervention that approaches to the contemporary public space as an equipped urban fragment which goes beyond the urban, civic and collective dimensions, and subverts its ability to give meaning and coherence to the city like the reasoning behind many of recent contemporary proposals. To initiate our proposed methodology, firstly we attain an urban and architectural value to contemporary public space design, as looking to the city as whole, ascribing its structures, orders, and shapes. A design approach that rates, ranks and appreciate the complexity of layers that comes with a diversity of interests. So that, our understanding of the design of the contemporary space is that where the design can not suspend itself from the complexity of the real, or from the desire to rebuild public spaces where urban experience encloses the multiplicity of its actors, users, and architectural and urban references. 68

RADICAL FLATNESS LOS ANGELES [2017] [HENRI BAVA] 69

PREPOSITION 2:

CONTEMPORARY SCAPES - landscape - vIRTUALSCAPE

PREPOSITION 2 - contemporary scapes

landscape as

[INFRASTRUCTURE]

Landscape Infrastructure: n. a methodology that expands the performance parameters of a designed landscape to a multi-functional, high performance system, including those systems originally ascribed to traditional infrastructure.[9]

[9] Hung, Y., & Aquino, G. (2011). Landscape infrastructure: Case studies by SWA. S.l.: S.n.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;As technology and environment emerged as key terms, they were often clustered with two other young words, urbanization and infrastructure. The first refers to the built world of settlements, the latter to the built world of connections. This cluster of language becomes tight-knit and self-reinforcing. Urbanization and infrastructure converge as city life extends beyond the city boundaries. Technology and environment converge into technological environment. As the building of the world has accelerated, this linguistic knot has become tighter and tighter.â&#x20AC;? Rosalind Williams Landscape as Infrastructure Some of the several contemporary challenges of our society such as; urbanization, ecological crisis, and climate change are demanding a vital review of planning and designing our landscapes in relation to environmental issues and sustainability. Although the technical challenges are fundamental, the spatial and cultural challenges are by far the most important. In a human-dominated geological era, the architecture of the urban landscape has turned into a complex system, extending itself beyond any individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception or direct influence. As an essential part of the urban landscape, infrastructures, by virtue of their scale, they exist in everywhere and unable to be hidden. Infrastructure has been conquesting the nature even though nature has been denying its colonization. Since the nineteenth century, natural landscapes have been transforming into urban, logistics, industrial and waste landscapes in favor of economic growth.[10]

[10] Nijhuis, S., & Jauslin, D. (2015). Urban Landscape Infastructures. In Flowscapes: Designing infrastructure as landscape (Vol. 3, Research in Urbanism, pp. 14-31). Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft.

Although the attempts of infrastructure engineers so called as successful by means of geopolitical and economic terms, they often result in disrupted landscapes, degenerated retrofitted constructions and buildings, and most importantly erasure of the natural and cultural values. However, lately, these irreversible harms result in creating a growing awareness in order to create more harmonious forms of urban landscape architecture. Infrastructure with no objection plays a key role in global policy since it is the primary field of investment of public authorities. The responsibility of infrastructure design is distributed to the disciplines of civil engineering, architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, agriculture and landscape ecology. 73

The conceiving dialectic between landscape and infrastructure, the relationship between processes and formal aspects, is the major debate topic of these disciplines. FROM INFRASTRUCTURE AS LANDSCAPE TO LANDSCAPE AS INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure design was an inevitable component of territorial planning and city development because of their great influence on the opportunities for economic and spatial development of urban landscapes and they make things possible. As an example, in the eighteenth century, the urban canals of Paris were used for transportation and to power mills and workshops and this resulted in the development of complex manufacturing activities along the riverbanks. In order to solve this situation, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the sewer system of Paris was employed for the removal of the human disposals as well as for the aim of producing the fertilizers that are needed in the rural surroundings. Even though infrastructures are important technical features in urban landscape they are not associated with a landscape. However, this association is and will be always vital because of their potential of having the power to use their operative force in transformation and exploration process in the territorial scale. “Infrastructures can be defined as constructed facilities and natural features that shelter and support most human activites - buildings of all types, communications, energy generation and distribution, green spaces, transportation of all modes, water resources, and waste treatment and management.” PERSI Technical Committee, 2006 “Landscape is an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.” Council of Europe, 2000 Defining the infrastructure and landscape separately in these ways indicates that infrastructure is the human stimulation to alter the natural environment, while the landscape is an accidental result.

LANDSCHAFTSPARK DUISBURG - GERMANY [1991] [LATZ + PARTNER] 75

[11] Shannon, K. & M. Smets (2010) The Landscape of Contemporary Infrastructure. Rotterdam, NAi Publishers

However, combining and redefining these both terms together offers an opportunity to have a more integral and multiple ending designs. At the same time, it alters the infrastructure with generating architecture, constructing landscapes and living environments, engaging the social and imaginative dimensions of engineering. This indicates that infrastructure is no longer a single discipline but a cross-cutting field that contains multiple disciplines.[11] 1- Infrastructure as Landscape Since the half of the eighteenth-century infrastructure has been an integral part of the landscape design by the landscape architects. For that reason; the concept of infrastructure as landscape and landscape as infrastructure are not brand new concepts. For instance; in the nineteenth century of Europe, during the industrial revolution there was the understanding of healthy cities which means the parks were the vital infrastructures. Also, in United States due to the fact of the increase in the usage of automobiles, green spaces were considered as green infrastructures for the cities and routes as â&#x20AC;&#x153;flow landscapesâ&#x20AC;? to provide scenic experience of natural environment while travelling. At the beginning of the twentieth century, these approaches escalated and had a great impact on the metropolitan park planning and highway design in Europe. Landscape architects and urban designers became more involved in the design process of infrastructures.

[12] McClusky, J. (1979) Road form and townscape. London, Architectural Press [13] Hough, M. (2004) Cities and Natural Process: A Basis for Sustainability. London, Routledge

Infrastructure as the landscape can be defined as object-oriented understanding, where the object is infrastructure and landscape design is treated as an interdisciplinary brief with the emphasis on the scape. Spatial, ecological, technical, and social perspectives can be the least four discourses infrastructural design can cover. In practice, these four discourses are overlapping although they have different objectives. The spatial perspective deals with phenomenological and psychological principles to allocate and design infrastructures such as roads, dykes, and etc.[12] The ecological discourse involves nature and environmental based techniques in order to create green infrastructures which are open spaces, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and etc. for sustainable cities.[13] In the technical approach, for the design of infrastructure as landscape, civil and agricultural techniques are used as the base. Examples can be described as flood management and urban agriculture. The social approach is mainly characterized by the human-centred perspective such as involving people in the development processes.

2- Landscape as Infrastructure Not so far from the concept of infrastructure as landscape, the idea of landscape as infrastructure is a more advanced concept. It can be described as a goal-oriented way of looking at the similar concepts in the sense of where landscape is handled as an operative field that defines and sustains the urban development and ecological and economic processes are attained as formative design tools. As an addition to Strang’s (1996) forward-looking approach to landscape as inrastructure[14] and Allen’s (1999) identification of the of infrastructural urbanism[15] lately Bélanger and The Infrastructure Research Initiative at SWA introduced the term of landscape infrastructure to redefine infrastructure as an integrated alternative for improving mass transit, enhancing public accessibility and ecological performance, while remaining economically reasonable. Landscape turns into the medium which can formulate and integrate infrastructure with feasible programming that can enlight vital issues that many cities are encountering nowadays.[16]

“By postponing the question of urban form, these proponents of a landscape infrastructural approach to the architecture of the city suggest that a focus on performance criteria, operational imperatives and contemporary flows might allow us to reengage with social and environmental subject.” Waldheim, C. Urbanism after form (2011) Landscape as infrastructure concept highly emerged in the design discipline of urbanism due to the fact that it is an interdisciplinary planning and design activity towards the built environment. Infrastructural urbanism, ecological urbanism, agrarian urbanism, water urbanism, metabolic urbanism, combinatory urbanism and landscape urbanism can be shown as examples for these emergent fields. Althought, these fields are highly emerged with landscape as infrastructure either they have more thematic, utilitarian way of looking at it or emphasizing the natural process but not including the socio-cultural aspects. This type of binary approach like ‘process’ vs ‘form’ or ‘ecology’ vs ‘sociology’ results in to miss the details of seeing complex webs of relationships which they are the vital constituents of the urban landscape. However, the design aim is to put things together rather than taking them apart, integration rather than reduction which in other words can be explained as it is about relationships between them not considering them a part. 77

Planning and designing decisions should focus on the relationship and interaction between the landscape processes and the formal-aeasthetic aspects in order to provide multiple relationships between nature and human. By doing so, the integration of nature and urban can be provided at a complex multi-scalar way. Re-establishment of the role of design as synthesising and stimulation of an interdisciplinary discourses by architects, urban designers, landscape architects and civil engineers that are working together on a more comprehensive form of urban landscape infrastructure design will provide a strong contervailing force. “As ecology becomes the new engineering, the projection of landscape as infrastructure—the contemporary alignment of the disciplines of landscape architecture, civil engineering, and urban planning— has become pressing. Predominant challenges facing urban regions and territories today—including shifting climates, material flows, and population mobilities, are addressed and strategized here. Responding to the under-performance of master planning and over-exertion of technological systems at the end of twentieth century, this book argues for the strategic design of “infrastructural ecologies,” describing a synthetic landscape of living, biophysical systems that operate as urban infrastructures to shape and direct the future of urban economies and cultures into the 21st century.” Pierre Bélanger Landscape as Infrastructure (2016) The conventional city infrastructure generally includes transportation, communication systems, water and power lines, other utilities and structures. It often works as efficiency oriented. On the other hand, the methodology of landscape infrastructure expands this way of approaching to designed landscape to a multi-functional, high performance system, including these systems originally ascribed to conventional infrastructure. Also, conventional urban design is not so different than the conventional infrastructure design, it is mainly focuses on building massing and grids. The Landscape Infrastructure on the contrary focuses on a landscape-oriented integration of built and natural environments in order to create innovative opportunities for building nature and public amenities into the infrastructure of a city. It adds multiple benefits to conventional infrastructure such as; city beautification, re-vegetation, forestationi conservation of water and energy, restoration of natural systems, storm water management 78

SABINE PROMENADE HOUSTON,TX UNITED STATES [2006] [SWA GROUP] 79

energy farming, wildlife habitat expansion, favored pedestrian use, enlargement of parks and open public areas in urban structures. It helps to transform urban blight into urban destination. Based on the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s latent natural and cultural features, landscape infrastructure helps to create an identity for a city. Some examples of the differences between the conventional infrastructure and landscape infrastructure which will be included in the following stages of our methodology can be described as follows;[16]

Streets: In the conventional way of designing streets is based on the needs of automobiles by means of engineering and maintenance but with the landscape infrastructure the aim is to re-design streets, streetscapes and pedestrian connections in the ways that beautify and revitalize them. Highways: Instead of only engineering and maintaining them for peak-traffic efficiency, using highway corridors as opportunities for the restoration of native habitat, re-vegetation, civic art and storm water management. Waterways: In addition to channelizing or altering waterways for storm water management or roadway development, the vital aim is to naturalize the disturbed, neglected creeks, rivers, and other waterways for storm water management, public spaces and urban wildlife habitat. Alleyways: Different than the conventional approach of identifying and using land on a utilitarian basis a major aim is to create usable parks, open spaces as a larger part of the urban fabric. Railways: Maintaining and converting the established rail lines are the conventional way of dealing with infrastructure. However, with landscape infrastructure it is repurposing railway corridors for hiking and biking trails and creating additional opportunities for parks, open spaces and habitat.

Parks and Open Spaces: With the conventional approach parks and open spaces are not considered as parts of infrasturcture. However, for landscape infrastructure they are the major parts. Utilizing parks and open spaces in order to nurture a respect for nature, provide recreational venues and link communities are some of the most important aims of it. Urban Design: Focusing on location of structures and connections are not enough on their own. Synthesizing buildings, streets, corridors and natural systems must be included in the process of urban design. The integration of public spaces and nature into the city can be achieved by landscape as infrastructure. In order to retrieve the control over the processes that shape the built environment and its contemporary landscapes, a fundamental review of infrastructural design is needed. Our methodology aims to achieve an urban landscape infrastructure included design to gain an effiecient transformation processes while establishing local identity and tangible relationships through connecting ecological and social processes with urban and architectural form. The design processes are crosscutting several fields that involves other disciplines. A complex interconnection of different systems and their formal expressions are fundamental aspects that we try to include in our complex journey. Since the concept of urban landscape infrastructure focuses on the design of the space of flows, which can be defined as transportation, green and water landscape infrastructures we had to acknowledge in the differences among the fields in order to understand their relationships and mention them integrally for our method for landscape strategy. Landscape Infrastructure concept lead us to facilitate functional, social and ecological relationships between natural and human systems. By studying urban landscape as a dynamic system, and a system of interaction between space and process, we achieved new perspectives of indisciplinary spatial intervations with a society that its users feels more involved, comitted and in harmony with the environment that they belong.

PREPOSITION 2 - CONTEMPORARY SCAPES

VIRTUALScapES

â&#x20AC;&#x153; Computers that can excel at nonroutine work and the digital interconnection of humanity are both phenomena of the past few years. So we think a decent starting point for the second phase of the second machine age is the second decade of the new millennium. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s when minds and machines, products and platforms, and the core and the crowd came together quickly, and started throwing off sparks. As a result, many long-standing assumptions have been overturned and well-established practices made obsolete. â&#x20AC;&#x153; Machine, platform, crowd. Harnessing our digital future. Andrew Mc Afee and Erik Brynjolfsson The development of new technologies has established a new era where machines not only contribute to the processes of productivity in human activities but also to produce and to collect data constantly. In addition to this fact, adults are more connected with each other in a more digital sense, and with uncountable knowledge. At the same time they re-contribute with this knowledge, directly or indirectly. All these processes constitute a volume of information that can be used in an efficient way in order to gain benefits for the cities and their citizens. This data comes from different resources, officials, governments, institutions, private investors, but also, from the users themselves. This means that working with this kind of information can lead us to understand the real-time processes of behaviour of the people in the places. Moreover, the new technologies not only give us the possibilities to understand patterns of behavior but also can react to them or lead them to change in an effective way. The digitalization, the fast process, the high speed of living, the new parallel virtual life that we have in the social media, the communicational globalization minute by minute, the massive increase in population of cities, and the increase of accessibility to all kind of information by people result in velocity and instability. Therefore, to follow this velocity and instability and in addition to that to understand these concepts, it is necessary to have tools that allow us to work in synchronization with this real-time reality.[17]

[17] MCAFEE, A. (2018). MACHINE, PLATFORM, CROWD: Harnessing our digital future. S.l.: W W NORTON.

It is more powerful and efficient to study the digital traces of various aspects of human behaviour since the digital technologies are becoming more and more widespread. Many of these aspects can be described via data which nowadays become global. At an individual and collective scale, the exploration of these data provides new 83

[18] Grauwin, Sebastian & Sobolevsky, Stanislav & Moritz, Simon & Gódor, István & Ratti, Carlo. (2014). Towards a Comparative Science of Cities: Using Mobile Traffic Records in New York, London, and Hong Kong. Computational Approaches for Urban Environments. 13. 10.1007/978-3-319-11469-9_15.

perspectives, revealing characteristic usages and dynamic patterns. It is vital to develop theoretical frameworks as well as real-time monitoring systems to understand how the individual dynamics shape the structure of cities in order to make better planning decisions since the urbanization and the world’s population are on extreme rise.[18] In the past years, several studies have shown that it was possible to use these data to get fresh view at the spatio-temporal dynamics within a city. ‘Architecture, we must say is where the generations communicate not only across a physical space but also in real time’. Vincent Scully ‘The real-time city is real! As layers of networks and digital information blanket urban space, new approaches to the study of the built environment are emerging. The way we describe and understand cities is being radically transformed—as are the tools we use to design them.’ MIT Senseable City Lab. Back in the 90s, there were many speculations about the exceeding digital revolution and its effects on cities, the possibility of replacing physical space with virtual one, or atoms with bits. There was this idea of disappearing urban spaces inhabited by individuals who were leading a life in a digital way instead of having face-to-face communications. Since the telecommunication technologies, digital media and the Internet killed the distances it was highly believed that they would also cause the same outcomes but in a negative way for the cities. However, these image of the digitality future has never become true, neither for its own enhanced race nor for the constructed spaces and landscapes that accommodate us and our activities. In fact, cities and the constructed spaces have been proliferating at an extraordinary rate, and the production and consumption of the spaces of mankind still fall within the physical realm.

Despite the generalized view of the digital world, a new situation has occurred which significates the digital and the physical world are merging, and atoms are augmented by bits of information. The digital did not and will not kill the physical world, on the contrary they are combining and completing each other. Our built environment is surrounded by a layer of networked digital elements, the information sphere has started to blend in with the physical space.[19]

MEGACITY DATATOWN [1999] [MVRDV] 85

One particular and most productive aspect is that the transformation of the cities into cybernetic real-time control systems which at the same time include the combination of static and dynamic nature that exist in the material sphere, and the things that happen in the info-social sphere,in other words, it can be defined as the combination of physical and virtual worlds. The new generation of urbanity will operate a cybernetic systems that function via sentient control mechanisms which means that people who live in a digitally augmented city can benefit from the real-time access to vast amount of information. In such kind of intelligent environments, all constitutive elements of urban life will be transformed into context aware, decision-making entities which results in people who are part of these environments can actually be able to incorporate instead of being a conventional inhabitants they will become hyper-individualized users. [20] Pask, Gordon (1969), “The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics”,Architectural Design 39, pp. 494-496.

As Gordon Pask metioned in his article ‘The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics’, architectural spaces should be designed as systems which are capable of responding to changing conditions, and adapting themselves to the needs of inhabitants.[20] Such cybernetic urban system by following his idea, can accommodate interactions as a spatial system and can extract contextual information, and meet the needs of its inhabitant, as well as can adopt behavioral patterns according to what it learns. In order words, this urban system is able to sense the processes that are based on detected spatio-temporal changes. It is progressed with the information of the past and it contemplates the future. These type of cybernetic urban systems are aware of contextual change over time, and has the ability to respond to these changes. In terms of using these opportunities in real life as an example we can think about the nowadays systems of monitors and cameras that try to control traffic. Since these technological devices give us the information of the traffic congestions, we can not double the size of the street in real-time but we can do is that as a citizen by recieving real-time information we can act accordingly. By receiving real-time urban information as public, it results in making citizens be enable to make better decisions about the use of urban resources, mobility and social interaction. At the same time, this digital architecture that senses and responds could begin to influence various complex and dynamic points of views of the city itself, help to enchance the economic, social, and evironmental sustainability of the places.

However, these situations doesn’t affect the spatial design in the sense of material resources. But they enable the cities to take in account of the temporal informations which are related to the specific location or context of those occupying it. This new way of analytical apporoach to the spatial dynamics which are provided by real-time and geographically situated information can help individuals inhabiting these lanscapes to make well-informed decisions. To this real-time, context-sensitive approach we can give a very basic example of the services that are provided by cellphones such as according to the usage levels inhabitants can understand the ‘hot spots’ of the cities. In these kinds of scenarios, not the space itself but its users are actuated, and efficient regulation of spatial dynamics is based on their decisions. This is also what we would like to frame our methodology, the characteristics of the city and its landscape of the future which become ‘smart’ by the collaboration of the citizens’ activities. The citizens become self-reporting agents who are contributing and monitoring the city as a cybernetic urban system by their actions being self-regulated based on the real-time informations about the constantly changing dynamics of the city. According to us these type of environments are the environments that are desired to be lived and worked in which are reinforcing the identity and culture through collaborations. A city that is more open to individual modifications can be viewed as more engaging and citizen-oriented which means the city itself turns into a limitless canvas of collaboration as a result of constant feedback and input from people. A city that all its citizens become the indicators by the real-time information that they obtain, will be more active and responsive to the concerns about constant changes and adopt themselves in an efficient and harmonious way. For that reason, instead of focusing on the function, structural durability, and aesthetic concerns, the focus is shifted to the performance. So that, the city and the citizens will be able to adapt themselves to the new conditions and perform with efficiency. All in all, the digitally augmented cities are performing cities, they function as a medium which their inhabitants within the space able to communicate among themselves, becoming active rather than passive, as well as responsible for the cybernetic organisms they inhabit.

Understanding the society today and how do people behave in cities implies the ‘visualization’ of an invisible landscape. It can be generated by the connections as a graphic transcription of segments, people, data and spaces. It strongly indicates time and space. We can define the virtual scape as instants of movements that can be placed (geographical space). This, allow to us to do a more accurate analytical process related with space, time, users, activities, environment, specific conditions and characteristics that take place. It is a multi-dimensional scape, a new way of interpreting geography. Therefore, the dynamics of the city in the actual times is not only given by the movement of the people but also how these virtual connections are developed. In this way, virtualization is not only an analytical tool, but also a strategical one. That can be used to transform our cities. [21] Heer, Jeffrey & M. Hellerstein, Joseph. (2009). Data visualization & social data analysis.. PVLDB. 2. 1656-1657. 10.14778/1687553.1687621.

From science and engineering to economics and social sciences analysts in all fields of human knowledge is overflowing in data. People are able to both collect and produce data at exponential rates thanks to the new technologies for sensing, simulation, and communication. In order to produce the real value from the accountless number of data, we must make sense of it. Turning datasets into knowledge which is the sensemaking is the keystone for query processing and data mining research. Besides the systems, algorithms and statistics “sensemaking” plays a fundamental role to create the interaction between human and virtual. It requires integration of data storage, access and analysis tools with subjective and contextualized judgments in order to understand the meaning of patterns that provided by data. [21] In our methodology “virtual scape” is the network of threads that connect people & spaces through the virtual world while manifesting in the real world, this constructs a matrix of use, movement & being of individuals and groups within the context. Accordingly, it’s in continuous mutation over time and space. It is a multi-layered storytelling with selective data even when the visualizations are static, everything depends on the concept of layering, establishing hierarchies and making them clear which is the main result from the data collection and selection and turning them into visual compositions. The methodology we propose is complex, compound, rich in information that can be combined in endless ways, therefore catching new points of view or discovering something that you didn’t know before often cannot happen at a glance: this process of “revelation” often needs and require an in-depth investigation of the context.

DIGITAL WATER PAVILLION ZARAGOZA- EXPO [2008] [CARLO RATTI ASSOCIATI] 89

References PREPOSITION 1 CONTEMPORARY SPACES

[1] Iacub, M. (2008). Par le trou de la serrure. Une histoire de la pudeurpublique. [Through the Keyhole: A History of Public Modesty.] Paris: Fayard. [2] BOHIGAS, Oriol. Barcellona: un’esperienza urbanistica. La Città Olimpica e il fronte mare. in La città europea del XXI secolo. Lezioni di storia urbana, Milano, Skira, 2002. [3] Vogt, A. M. (1983). Aldo Rossi: The architecture of the City. New York: Society of Architectural Historians. [4] SOLÀ-MORALES, Manuel de. The Impossible Project of Public Space. in In Favour of Public Space: ten years of the European Prize for Urban Space, Barcellona, Actar, 2010. [5] CROTTI, Sergio. “Interspazi”: dai siti pubblici ai luoghi comuni. in Le architetture dello spazio pubblico: forme del passato, forme del presente, Milano, Electa, 1997. [6] GREGOTTI, Vittorio. La riqualificazione degli spazi di risulta/ Re-qualifying residual spaces. in Casabella, n° 597-598, Milano, 1993. [7] HARVEY, David. Social Justice and the City. London, Edward Arnold ,1973. [8] AUGÉ, Marc. Nonluoghi. Introduzione a una antropologia della surmodernità. Milano, Eleuthera, 1993.

PREPOSITION 2CONTEMPORARY SCAPES LANDSCAPE [AS INFRASTRUCTURE]

[9] Hung, Y., & Aquino, G. (2011). Landscape infrastructure: Case studies by SWA. S.l.: S.n. [10] Nijhuis, S., & Jauslin, D. (2015). Urban Landscape Infastructures. In Flowscapes: Designing infrastructure as landscape (Vol. 3, Research in Urbanism, pp. 14-31). Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft. [11] Shannon, K. & M. Smets (2010) The Landscape of Contemporary Infrastructure. Rotterdam, NAi Publishers [12] McClusky, J. (1979) Road form and townscape. London, Architectural Press [13] Hough, M. (2004) Cities and Natural Process: A Basis for Sustainability. London, Routledge

[14] Strang, G.L. (1996) Infrastructure as Landscape [Infrastructure as Landscape, Landscape as Infrastructure]. Places, 10(3): 8 [15] Allen, S. (1999) ‘Infrastructural urbanism’, in: idem, Points + Lines. Diagrams and Projects for the City. New York, Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 46-59 [16], [9] SWA (eds.) (2011) Landscape Infrastructure: Case Studies by SWA. Basel, etc., Birkhäuser [17] MCAFEE, A. (2018). MACHINE, PLATFORM, CROWD: Harnessing our digital future. S.l.: W W NORTON. [18] Grauwin, Sebastian & Sobolevsky, Stanislav & Moritz, Simon & Gódor, István & Ratti, Carlo. (2014). Towards a Comparative Science of Cities: Using Mobile Traffic Records in New York, London, and Hong Kong. Computational Approaches for Urban Environments. 13. 10.1007/978-3-319-11469-9_15.

PREPOSITION 2CONTEMPORARY SCAPES VIRTUALSCAPES

[19] Ratti, C., & Nabian, N. (2010, January 01). VirtualSpace- Innovation Perspectives (Rep.). Retrieved http://senseable.mit.edu/papers/ pdf/20100101_Ratti_Nabian_VirtualSpace_InnovationPerspectives. pdf [20] Pask, Gordon (1969), “The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics”,Architectural Design 39, pp. 494-496. [21] Heer, Jeffrey & M. Hellerstein, Joseph. (2009). Data visualization & social data analysis.. PVLDB. 2. 1656-1657. 10.14778/1687553.1687621.

References OTHERS

- PERSI Technical Committee (2006) Proposed plan for the assessment of knowledge and practice for sustainable infrastructure. S.l.: Practice, Education and Research for Sustainable Infrastructure (PERSI) - Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention. Florence (European Treaty Series 176) - Bélanger, P. (2009) Landscape as Infrastructure. Landscape Journal 28(1): 79-95 - Bélanger, P. (2010) ‘Redefining infrastructure’, in: Mostafavi, M. & G. Doherthy (eds.) Ecological urbanism. Baden, Lars Müller Publishers, pp. 332-349 - Bélanger, P. (2013) Landscape infrastructure. Urbanism beyond engineering. Wageningen, Wageningen University. - Waldheim, C. (2011) ‘Urbanism after form’, in: Infranet Lab/Lateral office (eds.) Coupling. Strategies for infrastructural opportunism (Pamphlet architecture 30). New York, Princeton University Press - Urban Heartbeat. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http:// datacanvas.org/project/1064/ -Schmidt, C. M., & Xia, L. (2010-2011). Invisible Cities: Representing Social Networks in an Urban Context. Parsons Journal for Information Mapping, III(1), 1-6. Retrieved Winter, 2011, from http://www.christianmarcschmidt.com/invisiblecities/ - Building A Data Landscape (Rep.). (2015, August 11). Retrieved https:// online-behavior.com/analytics/data-landscape