Architecture and Democracy An analysis of the Forum, the Curia and the Chamber as the essential architectural elements for a Democracy
History and Theory Assignment 2011 Carolina Saludes- cs337@bath.ac.uk
Figure 1. The resored Stoa of Attalos in the Agora, Athens.
4
Index Introduction The First Democracies
4- 5 5- 10
Modern Democracy: Europe and America
10- 15
Towards a European Democracy
15- 19
The New Generation
19- 23
Conclusion
23- 26
Bibliography
28- 32
5
Introduction Government (from Greek kubernismos or kubernesis, ‘steering, pilotage, guiding’): (1) the governing body of a nation, state or community.(2) The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed. (3) The action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.
It has become clear overtime that at the core of a governing body is not just enforcing the law and imposing order, but representing and enhancing the identity of the community it is in, to strengthen the sense of belonging of its citizens for a better functioning in the future 1. One (if not the best) tool for this purpose is civic architecture, which has developed almost parallel to other building types and which, in its style and form, encompasses the reality and the aspirations of the people it represents. What are however the mechanisms through which civic architecture has reinforced the ideals of the nation over the centuries? What are the essential elements that constitute the spine of a democratic government? This essay, through a series of historic examples, will analyse the importance of the existence and the balance of three architectural elements that constitute the civic centre of a society. First is the Public Square, in which business, events and the general public come in contact with government, and around which are organised the government institutions essential for the running of the state. The second would be the Parliament House or Curia, which acts as a mediator between the general public and the members of the assembly. And third would be the Assembly Room itself, where free citizens elected by the public make the laws that will be enforced in the community. This topic, researched before by political analysts as well as architects, is at the core of modern politics and architecture. The understanding of the civic architecture of a particular place and its symbology is primordial for the understanding of the society itself, and the way government architecture strives to represent nations is a matter as important now as it has ever been. Inspired by theoreticians like sociologist Richard Sennett (‘The Fall of public Man’, 1977) 2 or architects like Lawrence J. Vale (‘ Architecture, Power and National Identity’, 1992) 3 , this essay will aim to argue the importance of the three elements of Forum, Curia and Chamber in the healthy relationship between the people and their 6
government. The essay is structured in four parts, the first of which, ‘The first Democracies’, is a succinct explanation of the origins of Democracy and its architectural representation. In the second part, ‘Modern Democracy’, there is an analysis of the influence of those original examples in the first modern democracies in the West; while in the third part, ‘Towards a European Democracy’, examples of modern architecture illustrate the new post-national identity of the European Union. Finally, ‘The New Generation’ explains two contrasting contemporary examples of civic architecture in Europe that represent the two different takes on contemporary representation of government and national identity.
The First Democracies Societies around the globe have understood the importance of government architecture for centuries (including Egypt, the Indus Valley, the Sumers, etc.) 4 developing different ways of organising and dividing government in and outside the city to ensure order and facilitate commercial activities. Initially these were mostly kingdoms though, with very limited relations to their population and with a very rudimentary understanding of the necessity of individualism but also belonging in the members of a community. Although not the first one, the most important nation to have first made a conscious effort to understand that relationship and to capture it in a new form of architecture is the city-state of Athens, in Ancient Greece. Democratic for only a very brief period in its history, the Athenian society ensured overtime a more and more plural society, made obvious by its government architecture and by the spatial relationship between governors and governed. This would become the blueprint for democratic governments for centuries, albeit the cultural differences and the distance in time. 5 The centre of Athenian government, which evolved over a period of 9 centuries, was the Agora. Translated as place of gathering or marketplace, this public space was first marked as such when the ‘Altar of the twelve Gods’ was installed in the VI c. BC on the side of the Panathenaic Way (this would become the centre of the square and a point of reference for all distances from Athens)6 . At the start of the Democracy (508 BC) came the addition of square boundaries and the building 7
Figure 2. Aerial view of the Agora, with its main government buildings highlighted. The building on the right is the Stoa of Attalos, rebuilt in 1953 (See Figure 1).
Figure 3. Representation of the old Bouleuterion, before it was replaced with the semicircualr one.
8
of the main civic buildings around it: the Bouleuterion or Senate House, the Royal Stoa or Magistrate’s house, the Courthouses, the Metroon or archives, and several Temples 7.[Figure 2] The central public space was kept free of buildings to allow for commerce and the natural gathering of people. This could be based on a number of factors. First of all, the Boule and the Ekklesia, the Senate and the House of Representatives, originally met up in open spaces and natural amphitheatres. It is only with the need for a more permanent location that the Boule moved indoors. The public space remained, however, a very important symbol. Also, the open spaces and colonnades of the adjacent buildings in the Agora allowed for market stalls and businesses, which increased the power of the Agora as the centre of Athens. This centralisation would make the functioning of the city easier, as any problem the citizen had or any religious dispute could be solved in the Royal Stoa or the Courthouses nearby. In addition, the open space represented the ideas of isonomia (‘equality for all’) and demokratós (‘government of the people’) 8 that had been developed for the past century and a half both in Athens and in other Greek polis such as Sparta. The practical understanding of the importance of limiting the power of those with money and conferring powers and rights to the community for a better and more united functioning of the state naturaly led to the establishment of the square at the centre of the city. The other architectural elements shifted throughout time to reflect the needs of the government and the population. However, the Bouleuterion or House of the Boule (Senate) is the other essential building of this civic complex, and an integral part of Athenian society. It was a relatively small building, tucked away from the Agora’s front facades, and showing only two spaces. One was an antechamber delimited by columns creating a gateway (propylon) 9; the other the amphitheatre where the Boule met. It consisted of semicircular seating space within an orthogonal room with windows to the outside and a speakers point at the centre of the semicircle [Figure 3]. This simple arrangement, which feeds architecturally from the open-air theatres of the time, has been copied ever since for its clear advantages. The semicircular seating allows for visual contact of all the members when in session. The speaker’s plateau, like the stage in the theatre, suggests in itself an ordered and linear type of discussion and allows for a moderator to be placed aside from the members. In addition, the antechamber creates a mediator between the outside and the assembly room inside, and enhances the position of the Boule as a meaningful part of the democratic process, deserving therefore to be protected and cherished. 9
Figure 4. View of the Forum from the South East, with a view of the Curia at the back
Figure 5. Interior of the Curia Julia
10
Very influenced by this political development, Rome followed the example of the open square. The Roman Forum, originated as the place of truce between the two tribes that controlled Rome, in the plain between the Capitoline and the Palatine Hills, was as much a geographical centre as it was a symbolic one. 10 Starting in the VII c BC, the Forum (the Latin translation of Agora) slowly developed to be a public square with commercial and civic buildings around it, including the Senate House or Curia [Figure 4], the Government Offices, the Tribunals and Temples (both sustained by the government), and several memorials and statues. Feeding form the same ideas as the Agora, this public square developed to be a crucial point of contact between the Republic (and afterwards the Emperor) and the people of Rome. We can see that there is a clear evolution in the building type of the Public Square, as from very early on the Senate decided to move the main commercial activity to more appropriate spaces in the city, creating a centralised hub of governmental buildings and institutions. 11 This translates in the conversion of the central open area from a marketplace to a space dedicated to military processions, memorials and ritual sacrifices. The symbolic meaning of the square as a plateau for the Senate and the Emperor to speak out to the rest of the Empire has retained a very strong significance in History; especially, as we will see, in the United States of America. Some elements were also developed, such as the shape of the Square, which is regularised into an orthogonal shape. An axis is applied to it through the building of the Speakers stage or ‘Rostra’ on the West end and the construction of the Basilica Julia and the Basilica Aemilia on the North and South sides, making it effectively an open air chamber of debate. Within the context of the Square, the Curia or Senate House developed over time according to the political interests of the Republic and the Empire. The first Curia Hostilia housed the Comitium, a compendium of political and legislative power, and was located in a corner of the Forum diagonal to it 12. This reinforced the idea of the importance of the Senate and the public character of the Comitium. Gaius Julius Caesar, however, rebuilt it after a fire making it smaller and squaring it up with the Forum. This signals the slow shift of power from the Senate to the general consul, later to be called, under Augustus, the Emperor. 13 At the same time, the assembly room also developed slightly from the Bouleuterion in Athens. Instead of a semicircular shape, the seating was organised in two sets of rows facing each other, with a corridor in between leading to the consul’s seat, an arrangement that facilitated the acoustics of the space [Figure 5]. There is, however, still the colonnade leading to an antechamber at the entrance, separating the noisy and polluted street from the main space. 11
It is very relevant to notice how the powers of the Curia got gradually transferred out of the building and into the imperial Palace in the Capitoline Hill (a much more dominant place, more similar to the Acropolis than the Agora). As control moved away from the Forum and the people lost contact with their government, Rome progressively radicalised, until the series of Dictatorships in the I and II centuries AD crippled it almost fatally. The disease suffered by the Forum (that of emptiness of relevance) was a manifestation of the situation of the city of Rome and the Empire.
Modern Democracy: Europe and America The two models of institutional architecture left by Athens and Rome, that of the Agora or the Capitol (also understood as citadel, or ‘upper city’) 14 were, together with modern neoclassical architecture, essential for the development of the first fully designed capital in the world: Washington D.C. 15 The ideals of democracy, freedom and equality were topics that, in the recently created United States of America, could be investigated in depth architecturally, and taken to a scale and grandeur that the Roman Empire could have never dreamt of. Inspired by the Revolutionary ideas of France, both political and architectural, the new country of the Americas embarked on the mission of creating a common capital that all estates could identify themselves with. In this new city (to be called Washington in honour of its first President) the centre of the government and the judicial bodies would constitute the absolute epicentre of the city, and so a symbol of the demokratĂłs. American politicians (most of them English) got inspiration for this new and strong government in the Roman Empire, especially in the early Republican ideals of equality, honesty and faithful representation of the people. This transpires architecturally in the naming of certain parts of Washington, such as the Tiber Creek and the Capitol Hill, named purposely after the Italian city. 16 It also relates to it in the will to create a grand public space around which to organise the civic hub of the city and the country, not only for practical reasons but as a symbolic unification as well. Although Washington was preconceived, the perfecting of the symbols and the messages sent by its government have been developing over the past 200 years, in a very similar way to how the Agora or the Forum came to be. It is very 12
Figure 6. The civic complex of the city of Washington, with the White House to the North, the Capitol to the East, the Lincoln memorial to the West and the Jefferson memorial to the South.
Figure 7. The West Front of the Capitol building. To each side of the Capitol are the Senate Wing and the House of Representatives wing.
13
important to understand that the constant evolution of a nation or a community must be and is reflected in the change to the civic buildings, which ensure that the ideals and the functions that these fulfil are up to date with society’s needs. Most of the city’s urban design actually owes most of its design to the Palace of Versailles near Paris, a powerful and rational arrangement that puts the Capitol building at the same height as the King’s Palace 17. The buildings within the plan, on the other hand, follow the then radical neoclassical style, very in keeping with the new Republican ideas of the Government 18. The rapid adoption of this style by the architects of the new Estate (most of them French) meant that within half a century that style could be adapted to establish a language for all the civic buildings across the USA, the so-called ‘Federal Architecture’. This helped create unity and clarity within the young government. In Washington, two elements of the organisation of the buildings within the public spaces are innovative. One is the location of the President’s House (the White House) away from the Capitol, although connected to it by a grand avenue [Figure 6]. This separation of powers reflects the will of the United States as a society to mark out the code of conduct of its ruling members, limiting their strength to their allocated job. The second element is the deliberate location of the Capitol (not the President’s House or a religious building) at the centre of the Capital’s geography, making a clear statement of priorities within the Republic. The Capitol, the architecture of which is inspired by buildings such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and St. Peter’s in Rome 19, is a vast building, representing the dominance over the country through its elevated position and through its massive scale. It is divided in three parts, the first being the central rotunda underneath the 88 metre dome; the point of reference to all addresses in the capital city, and the mediating space between the Senate and the House of Representatives [Figure 7]. Underneath the Rotunda, like in a Catholic Church, is a crypt at the centre of which the tomb of George Washington was going to be located. This never happened though, and now a plinth used for Estate funerals occupies the space. This centralisation of politics is at the heart of American ideals, and was a radical move from the Ancien Régime previously prevalent in Europe. The two bodies of the Senate and the Congress, housed at either end of the rotunda, have their own debating chambers, both in the tradition of the Greek Bouleuterion but with profound influences of post-Revolution French architecture [Figure 8]. The order and hierarchy of these main spaces (Debating Chambers, Capitol and National Mall extending to the Lincoln Memorial) has been kept almost intact from the creation of the Republic in 1776. This could be due to many factors, like 14
Figure 8. The House of Representatives at the Capitol.
Figure 9. Coloured engraving of the Reichstag in 1900.
15
Figure 10. View of the Stockholm City Hall (Ragnar Östberg, 1923) from across the Harbour.
Figure 11. East view of the Säynatsälo Town Hall (Alvar Aalto, 1952) through the forest.
16
the clarity of priorities in laying the foundation of the nation or the implacable capacity to hide away its flaws. Indeed these and all the others are visible in the architecture of Washington’s civic buildings, that reflect a nation as troubled as any other but with an unstoppable determination for self-improvement. Back in Europe, there wasn’t the possibility to create a new capital as the basis for a new estate. The Reichstag building in Berlin was born from the necessity to house the new Bundestag, or Parliament, after the creation of the German Empire in 1871. This body shared legislative power with the Bundesrat, a council for the reigning Princes, so it did not have much relevance within the Government. As it would happen in 1989, the design for the Reichstag came straight after a unification of several kingdoms with their own history, which rendered it almost impossible to define a common language, let alone a common architecture for all. These two facts made the construction of the Reichstag and its location extremely awkward, something that might reflect the turbulence of Germany’s democracy 20. The Reichstag Building was located near the Brandenburg Tor, on the limits of the old medieval town. It was stripped of the symbolic central location that characterised other assembly buildings. Although placed in front of the Grosse Tiergarten, a public park, it only had a very discreet landscaped garden in front of it, and it was not in axis with any important civic buildings. In the building itself, the glass dome was the most radical element, set over the meeting chamber. This became an inspiration for other liberal movements in Europe, and a standing symbol of the power of democratic thought, reinforced by the message ‘Dem Deutscher Volke’ (‘For the German People’) at the main entrance [Figure 9]. However, these strong liberal aspirations were not enough to overrule the will of the Emperor. Berlin’s Reichstag and Germany in general are a good example of the struggle for democracy and how clearly that shows in government architecture. As we will see further on, this struggle continues up until today.
Towards a European Democracy In the stylistic development of civic architecture it is important to note that, as nations grew a stronger sense of their own history and their own identity, it became more and more important to develop a unique architectural language for institutional buildings. This had the role of telling the people the story of their own 17
nation, and in doing so reinforce their sense of national pride. We can see this in various buildings across Europe, both before and after World War II. One of the most accomplished ones is Stockholm’s City Hall (Ragnar Östberg, 1923) [Figure 10], again a product of the need to create a representative building after the creation of a new country (Sweden was now separated from Norway and Finland). Östberg, accompanied by many other Scandinavian architects, chose to go away from the neoclassical style, used for very long for all public buildings, but associated with the Monarchy and the old regime. Instead, as part of the new National Romanticism, these architects sought to design architecture that was rooted in the History of the country and in vernacular architecture. 21 There are references to folk, to medieval architecture and a digging out of symbols and representations, much closer to the people than the estranged neoclassical architecture. On a similar note Finland, who for a long time had been part of Sweden, found itself with the opportunity to develop its own architectural language through public architecture. The Town Hall of Säynätsalo (1952) is a very good example of this. Alvar Aalto was asked in 1924 to design a master plan for the island of Säynätsalo. Clearly influenced by the Government buildings of ancient Rome and Greece but ready to adapt them to his country, he envisaged a sort of Acropolis for sport and culture at the top of the hill, surrounded by the city hall and other civic buildings. Although his master plan was never built, the ideas carried out in the Town Hall comptetition of 1949, in the highest part of the island, reflected his vision of democracy, municipalism, harmony between public and private, lack of ostentation and harmony between nature and technology. 22 “In some mystical way, a courtyard surrounded by a building has a flavour that underlines community functions” 23. The building is a U-shaped conglomerate of municipal offices, flats and shops organised around a raised public piazza, an ‘atrium for the whole town’ 24 [Figures 12 and 13]. This combines both the idea of the Agora and the Capitol, but developing them for the Northern climate and the modern needs. On one hand the elevated courtyard, accessed through irregular grassy steps, resembles the procession to the Acropolis [Figure 14]. On the other hand the courtyard, with its transparent elevations, dialogues with the inside spaces in the same way as the Agora, connecting very intimately the inside with the outside. On the outside of the building there is a subtle and profound connection to the forest 18
Figure 12. Roof Plan with council chamber
Figure 13. Main level plan at courtyard level 19
Figure 14. Entrance to the raised courtyard through the grassy stairs, with the council chamber in the background.
Figure 15. View of the Council chamber with the big side window and louvres, reminiscent of the Curia Julia.
20
that surrounds the building,25 which is seen through the different windows and openings, and which becomes part of the inside spaces. The idea of the Curia was crucial for Aalto, so much so that the called the competition project ‘Curia of Säynätsalo’. He recognised the importance of the three elements of integrated public space, approachable government building and precious assembly room. The council chamber, elevated above the rest of the structure, is accessed through stairs that surround it. It is a pitched roof, tall room with diffuse light coming from a big high side window. This is very similar to the Curia Julia in Rome, in which the tall space is illuminated through three high windows [Figures 5 and 15]. It is easy to see why this is so convenient, as it brings light in without allowing noise or sight from the exterior. The ‘Perhoset’ (butterfly) timber trusses also reminisce of the interior structure of the Curia, but in this case these two elements also allow for ventilation of the roof. ‘The entire building effectively climbs upwards around itself to raise the council chamber higher and higher’ 26. The choice of materials for the building, similar to Östberg, derives from Nordic medieval castles and vernacular Finish architecture. The red brick, used with various old types of bonding for decorative reasons; and timber, worked in a very traditional way, breathe historic richness, while the innovative use of the materials in terms of form and function make it an extraordinarily modern piece of architecture. From the moment it was opened to the public, the Town Hall was praised for its vision and aspirations; not only was it a profoundly Finish building, but it had embedded in it the values that Europe sought for its common government architecture. The rooting of the building in national traditions; the innovative connection between the public and the administrative body; the clarity of the message transmitted through the architecture and the spatial excellence of the building made it straight away a symbol of the new European Democracy.
The New Generation The renovation of the Reichstag building in 1994, like the original building, was the representation of a newly united nation; this time after the fall of the Berlin wall 21
in 1989. The architect appointed for the project, Sir Norman Foster, followed the example of the Bonn parliament (opened just a few years before), which reflected the will of the German government to create a transparent and accessible state 27, away from the horrors of World War II and the communist era. This translated architecturally in the use of glass for almost every space, certainly for the parliamentary chamber, but also for the offices and for the areas connecting the public with the staff. The project, controlled by the Bundestag itself, changed dramatically over the course of the design stage. It finally consisted of a complete internal renovation, leaving the exterior almost intact, with the installation of a new dome over the parliamentary chamber. The dome, made of glass and steel, would be open to the public, with a big helix-shaped double ramp going upwards, situating the public literally ‘above the government that served them’ 28 [Figure 17]. Within the building, the graffiti left by the allied forces when entering Berlin were exposed, and marks of war on the walls left uncovered. This was intended at reminding Germany of its past, while the new ‘transparency’ would project an image of hope for the future. The grounds outside the building, once decorated with a garden, would be left untouched as just a field of grass. This space would be used for exhibitions, concerts and public events, and link the Reichstag to the new Bundestag offices to the North of the site [Figure 16]. The project, completed in 1998, was however not a happy solution for anybody. The Bundestag did not feel the character of Germany was fully represented in the building 29, and the internal disputes over design had rendered it a bad compromise. In the end the Reichstag building seems an odd example of institutional architecture. The three elements of public space, parliament building and core parliamentary chamber are preserved, but the message the building gives is not clear. The apparent transparency of the building is but a naïve metaphor of an open Government 30, and the preservation of recent History more a shame than an honour for the country. In sharp contrast to the Reichstag is the renovation of the small Utrecht Town Hall (2000) in the Netherlands, by the late Enric Miralles. The stylistic approach to the building (very eclectic and organic compared to the old neoclassical building) shows a clear intention to reflect the character of modern Utrecht and modern Netherlands, with its controversies and differences. The use of old building materials and the mixing of these aims to represent better the qualities of the Dutch than the rigid neoclassical building did. 22
Figure 16. West Front of the renovated Reichstag Building (Foster + Partners, 1998).
Figure 17. Meeting chamber of the Bundestag at the Reichstag.
23
Figure 18. The new East Square and wing of the Utrecht Town Hall (Enric Miralles, 2000).
Figure 19. West view of the Town Hall, with the neoclassical facade.
24
The site has been the location of the Town Hall for more than 650 years. Although it was suggested that it should be moved somewhere more spacious, it was always left where it was. Ten different buildings have occupied the site, the latest of which, before the renovation, dated from 1830. The building, like the rest of the city, seems to be itself a conglomerate of houses on the canal. The architectural form of the Town Hall therefore mirrors the city and merges with the landscape. Before the renovation however the building was so packed between alleyways that it was almost impossible to recognise it as a public building. It was devoid from an appropriate public space, something that Miralles sought to solve by creating a back square and moving the entrance to the building to it [Figure18]. The new wing, to the North of the old building is used mainly for civil servants’’ offices and as the main entrance to the building 31. The political activities, therefore , are preserved within the Neoclassical building, something very important for the integrity of the building. Programmatically this reduces the pressure on the old building, which can then be dedicated to ceremonial and public events rather than filtering people into the building. Miralles had a very clear idea of how the assembly room was the hub of the building 32, to be enhanced and protected, while the Town Hall would relate to the public spaces to the North and South. [Figure 20] This renovation, although discreet in size, is very relevant in that it creates, over the blueprint of an already existing building, the three spaces that we have been seeing throughout the essay. These spaces are renovated so that they can be celebrated and appreciated. Not only does this renovation put the building back in touch with its symbolic and practical function through its spaces, but it creates a whole architectural language for its people. It is true though that there were mixed reviews on the building, in particular with the aesthetic appearance of the new wing. Perhaps it was difficult for some to acknowledge that this aesthetic was in essence a mirror of themselves, with both the good and the bad.
Conclusion The importance and effectiveness of public architecture, especially when applied to Parliament buildings, is not so much associated to stylistic or formal preferences, but to the accuracy with which it represents the nation or community it is in. Not only does it have an important role in the correct functioning of Government, but also in the symbolic representation of the aspirations of a society (be that a village, 25
a country or an Empire). The sense of belonging, pride and unity is strengthened or weakened by the use of architecture. This is not only true only in a particular period of time, but along the history of the community. The successful architecture of democracy will ensure the ease of communication between the governors and the governed; it will establish the appropriate hierarchy within the government through spatial arrangement and will create a common language for all the citizens of the place not only in the present but in the future. Through the writing of this essay I have learned the importance of public architecture in the psyche of a community. I have learned about the value of the public square as a place of release, gathering and community at all levels; about the importance of the presence of civic buildings in the heart of the city; and the profound meaning of the parliamentary chamber. This is something I will take with me for the design project in the coming semester, which might include a City Hall, but which will ultimately aim to serve the people of Bath and represent the community faithfully and with honesty.
26
Figure 20. Utrecht Town Hall
Reference List 1
Lawrence J.Vale ‘Architecture, Power and National Identity’, Yale, 1992, p. 10.
2
Richard Sennett ‘The Fall of Public Man’, London, 1974.
3
L. J. Vale. Op. cit.
Anon . Government. From the website ‘Essential-architecture’, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://w w w.essential-architecture.com/ T YPE/ T YPE- 02.htm [Accessed 05 Januar y 2011] 4
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Athenian Agora, introduction. From the Website of the same organisation, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://w w w.agathe.gr/ [Accessed 08 Januar y 2011] 5
6
Ibid. Over view.
7
Ibid. Over view.
8
Ibid. Democracy.
9
Ibid. Over view. L. J. Vale. Op. cit., pp. 15.
10
Jona Lendering. Curia Julia. From the Website ‘Livius: Ar ticles on Ancient Histor y’, 2002. [Online] Available from: http://w w w. livius.org/ct-cz/curia/julia.html [Accessed 13 Januar y 2011] 11
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
L. J. Vale. Op. cit, pp. 19.
15
Ibid. pp. 45.
16
Ibid. pp. 45.
28
17
20
Ibid. pp. 45.
18
Anon . Government. Op.cit.
19
L. J. Vale. Op. cit, pp. 42.
Michael Z. Wise, ‘Capital Dilemma: Germany’s search for a New Architecture of Democracy’, Princeton, 1998. Page 121.
21
Barbara Miller Lane ,‘National Romanticism and Modern Architecture in Germany and the Scandinavian countries’, Cambridge, 2000. Page 168.
Alvar Aalto Foundation . Säynätsalo Town Hall., Säynätsalo Kunnantalo. From the website of the same organisation, 2007. [Online] Available from: http://w w w3.jkl.f i/saynatsalo/townhall/index-en.htm [Accessed 13 Januar y 2011] 22
23
24
Ibid. Ar ticle on Säynätsalo Town Hall.
27
28
Ibid. Alvar Aalto quote, 1952.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
Michael Z. Wise Op. cit. pp. 126
Ibid. Quote from Sir Norman Foster. pp. 128 29
Ibid. pp. 130
30
Ibid. pp. 132
Archidose. City Hall of Utrecht in Utrecht, Netherlands. From the Website ‘A Weekly dose of Architecture’, 2002. [Online] Available from: http:// archidose.org/wp/2002/06/17/city-hall-of-utrecht / [Accessed 16 Januar y 2011] 31
32
Ibid.
29
Image Credits American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Interior view of the lower colonnade of the Stoa of Attalos. From the Website of the same organisation, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.agathe.gr/ [Accessed 08 Januar y 2011] Figure 1.
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Athenian Agora excavations. From the Website of the same organisation, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.agathe.gr/ [Accessed 08 Januar y 2011] Figure 2.
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Reproduction of the old Bouleuterion. From the Website of the same organisation, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.agathe.gr/ [Accessed 08 Januar y 2011] Figure 3.
Anon. The Roman Forum. From the Website ‘Visiting dc’, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.visitingdc.com/rome/roman-forum-picture.asp [Accessed 14 January 2011] Figure 4.
Anon. Inside Curia Julia. From the Website ‘Flickr’, 2008. [Online] Available from: http:// www.flickr.com/photos/laundrygal/2707870434/ [Accessed 13 January 2011] Figure 5.
National Capital Planning Commission. The McMillan Plan of 1901. From the Website of the same organisation, 2010. [Online] Available from: http://www.nps.gov/nr/ travel/wash/dc70.htm [Accessed 14 January 2011] Figure 6.
The Architect of the Capitol. Images of the US Capitol: West Front. From the Website of the same author, 1997. [Online] Available from: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/photo-gallery/ capitol_views.cfm [Accessed 13 January 2011] Figure 7
.
The Architect of the Capitol. Images of the US Capitol: House Chamber. From the Website of the same author, 1997. [Online] Available from: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/photogallery/capitol_views.cfm [Accessed 13 January 2011] Figure 8 .
Library of the US Congress. Reichstagsgebäude, Berlin, 1900. From the Website of the same organisation, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/ item/93517365/ [Accessed 15 January 2011] Figure 9.
Dachi. The Stockholm City Hall. From the Website ‘Photo Radar: the home of digital photography’, 2010. [Online] Available from: http://www.photoradar.com/photos/128075/ dachi85/the-stockholm-city-hall [Accessed 13 January 2011] Figure 10.
30
Jmtp. Säynätsalo Town Hall, Finland. From the Website Flickr, 2006. [Online] Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/19126774@N00/1213222328 [Accessed 14 January 2011]
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Yukio Futagawa. ‘Global Architecture: Alvar Aalto, Town Hall in Säynätsalo’, Japan, 1973 (Page 54) Figure 13.
Ibid. (page 54)
Elisabetta Monaco. Säynätsalo Town Hall. From the ‘Flickr’ Website, 2008. [Online] Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/62739433@N00/2703060413/ [Accessed 14 January 2011] Figure 14.
Archiryan. Säynätsalo Town Hall. From the Website Flickr, 2007. [Online] Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/archiryan/4106501678/ [Accessed 14 January 2011]
Figure 15.
Matthew Field. Reichstagsgebäude von Westen, Berlin. From the Website WikiCommons, 2009. [Online] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_reichstag_west_ panorama_2.jpg [Accessed 14 January 2011]
Figure 16.
Anke Jacob. Deutscher Bundestag. From the MDKN website, 2008. [Online] Available from http://www.mdk-niedersachsen.de/mdk/news/news_Bundestag-Patientenverfuegung-Sterbehilfe.htm [Accessed 13 January 2011] Figure 17.
Figure 18.
MiMoa. Extension to the Utrecht Town Hall. From the Website Mi Modern Architecture, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.mimoa.eu/projects/Netherlands/ Utrecht/Extension%20to%20Utrecht%20Townhall [Accessed 14 January 2011]
Rienbouw. Utrecht, the Netherlands. From the Website ‘Webshots’, 2004. [Online] Available from: http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1190031947033171943WCrzpL [Accessed 15 January 2011] Figure 19.
David Iliff. A view of a canal in central Utrecht. From the Wikicommons Website, 2006. [Online] Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Utrecht_Canals_Aerial_ View_-_July_2006.jpg [Accessed 14 January 2011]
Figure 20.
Bibliography Anon. Government. From the website ‘Essential-architecture’, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.essential-architecture.com/TYPE/TYPE-02.htm [Accessed 05 January 2011]
Anon. Säynätsalo Town Hall (1949- 1952). From the Website ‘Arquigrafía’, 2009. [Online] Available from: http://editthis.info/arquigraf iaupm/Saynatsalo_Town_ Hall [Accessed 12 Januar y 2011]
Foundation of the Hellenic World. Bouleuterion: Birthplace of Democracy. From the website of the same name, 1996. [Online] Available from: http://www.ime.gr/projects/bouleuterion/en/sterea.html [Accessed 09 January 2011]
Foundation of the Hellenic World. The Altar of the twelve Gods. From the website ‘Virtual reality Digital Collection: The ancient Agora of Athens’, 2006. [Online] Available from: http://project.athens-agora.gr/index.php?view=ktirio&pid=3&lang_id=en [Accessed 09 January 2011]
Allan Greenberg. Architecture and Democracy (excerpt). From the AIA website, 2006. [Online] Available from: http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architecture-ofdemocracy.aspx [Accessed 10 January 2011]
Jona Lendering. Curia Julia. From the Website ‘Livius: Ar ticles on Ancient Histor y’, 2002. [Online] Available from: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/curia/julia.html [Accessed 13 Januar y 2011]
Keving Lerner. The most beautiful office building in the world. From the website ‘in the cause of Architecture’, 2002. [Online] Available from: http://archrecord.construction.com/ inTheCause/0502ChicagoTribune/ChicagoTribune.asp [Accessed 11 January 2011]
Bernard Suzanne. Map of the Agora of Athens in Socrates and Plato´s time. From the website ‘Plato’s dialogues’, 1998.[Online] Available from: http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/agora. htm [Accessed 13 January 2011]
Jeremy Till. The Architect and the Other. From the website ‘open Democracy: free thinking for the world’, 2006 [Online] Available from: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ecology-landscape/architecture_3680.jsp [Accessed 10 January 2011]
Richard Weston. Town Hall, Säynätsalo, Alvar Aalto. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1993. Andrew Wilson. The Athenian Agora. From the Website ‘The classical pages: Archaeology’, date unknown. [Online] Available from: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/agora.htm [Accessed 12 January 2011] 32