urbanism design studio 3

Pa pa trik S ‘Le ram chu t t etri ma he cis ch sty m - er o le n wa rs be gin ’.

URBANISM DESIGN STUDIO Peter Cittadini

Masterplan and urbanism is part of the notion of humanbeing. Without it, there will be no order and humanity.

CONTENT

1. REPORT ON THE GLENSIDE DEVELOPMENT MASTERPLAN 2. THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND RENEWAL SA’S LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA 3. SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION FOR THE GLENSIDE DEVELOPMENT SITE 4. DESIGN RESPONSE 5. ESSAYS : HISTORICAL AND THEORITICAL

DESIGN STUDIO 3

REPORT&CONCEPT

MASTERPLAN

ABSTRACT

We are greeted with a perspective render of the post-development Site [1]. Street corners do not angle ‘but arc with symmetrical efficiency’ [Belov], streets are narrow, bitumen seamless to kerb, flows to bright-white concreted footpaths, suggestive of slowed pace, and conservative inhabitants. Manicured grasses, pruned-standard, note the generic feel to photoshop-style copy + paste trees and shrubs. A few figures trod the landscape with aimless vigour. Heritage Buildings are textured with brick and reflective roofing, and the concept ‘housing’, is conceptualised ultimate white | glassy | block | jut; generic repetitiveness of an unimaginative and tasteless quality, that you could mistake the Site location for the outer Goldcoast, some middle Sydney inner suburb, Phuket, a seaside town in northern Greece, a development in the middle of Bogota. The only thing that ensures you of its parochiality: endless sky stretched atop a greyed-out suburbia of deathless pall.

INTRODUCTION A Masterplan. The Glenside Development Masterplan. “Prepared by: Hames Sharley for Cedar Woods and Renewal SA (the Government of South Australia)”. Release date: April 2016. To follow, a dissection of the language and graphical representation employed by Hames Sharley. We include in this report, a positivist account of the development, that, considering site issues, community resistance and governmental regulations, Cedar Wood’s offer is probably as ‘good as it gets’. The Glenside Development Masterplan shall be referred to as the ‘Document’, and the Glenside Development site as the ‘Site’.

The Document introduces itself as a response to a governmental desire to optimise the Site. Desire proceeds lack. The Document iterates this lack to be ‘medium to high density development’ [6]. Conjoined to this iteration, is the need to respect the ‘sites unique natural and built heritage’. In Heritage we find continuity, continuity as the progeny of and the resistor to innovation [Frampton 21]. Continuity requires a strong claim to form and history, the Parkside Lunatic Asylum, complete with omnipresent turret clock, distinguishes itself in gesture, as a cultural gesture to industrial-era organisation and division of labour, and the modern era phenomena of panoptic control of the individual space-time [Foucault].

Heritage then acts as a repository of cultural unity and as monument to a universalised Western culture founded on intellect and rationality, and a governmental necessity for continuity, which is perhaps the embodiment of political will, political will a lack of and a desire for power. Thus the document, abstracted, as both a developmental Masterplan, and as the signification to an accepted historicity comes across as assumptive and embedded with the cultural values it serves. It is difficult to see how the document will be able to innovate from this point, as with each turn of page it buries itself to restriction and continuity.

LANGUAGE

Following this, the document progresses through the site analysis, ‘key objectives’ and then the Masterplan. The blue decal utilised as the background to titles and intercessory pages is a referential combination of the Cedar Woods logo and the Renewal SA Logo. Rather than 1, 2, 3 and 4, the chapters are signed as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0.

Referent to ver. / version, computer-savvy, this lot.

Vague and low-definition Google satellite images with pastel-flourescent overlays and annotations communicate all cartographic representations for chapters 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. At 100 percent zoom level on a standard screen the Document’s text is too small to read. The images have been compressed with a lossy JPEG algorithm. Increasing the zoom-level of the document to read the text, and the images blur, and at 100 percent zoom, many of the images are too small / poor quality and unreadable, and therefore pointless distractions.

Example, page 16: “The adaptation of both the administration building and staff dining room for reuse by the South Australian Film Corporation are excellent examples of how this can be done well (shown below)”, at this point, you will look down to see three clouded representations – of something. Perhaps a room, or an interior of some-sort.

REPRESENTATION

DEPTH Behind this language and representation however, the reader discovers a magnanimous depth and time-engagement with the site [as it is the biggest development currently on offer in South Australia]. The Document suggests all the necessary alterations to movement [motor traffic, people], Utilities [water, gas, electricity, sewerage, information-cabling], mentions soil contamination and recommends to save trees from felling, and where trees cannot be saved, new ones will be planted.

It is a utilitarian, attitude, and scientifically practical, however the community feels that this response to be inadequate.

The Document presents a full consideration and engagement with the site. The Document presents a society hinged on regulation, and the Masterplan it offers, whilst not innovative, promises to be continuous with this regulation. From this,

we, as students can learn that master-planning is the act of plan and configuration, and not necessarily of design. A Masterplan is a document of the modern era, it assumes truth, intention and control. As Theo Crosby states in Architecture: City Sense, the intention and control of the artist, the architect and the planner relates to distance: “A work of art is a work, and it is aimed at the psyche. It has it’s own scale, the scale of a hand, the scale of a man, standing. The work has a range of influence, seldom more than forty feet. Yet this is the range at which architecture only begins to operate on the senses up to perhaps, 400ft. As the scale progressively increases, so does the originators control over the final object diminish.... The planner is so far from the reality of building that it is nothing short of a miracle when any piece of planning is actually realised.” [p 26-27]

The Masterplan will plan the necessary buildings and services for the Site, will properly configure the new intersection to hold new cars, whilst not really engaging with the idea of careless development, or a society burdened less by traffic and high speed transport. The Masterplan will not be able to control what follows. However, to gain acceptance, a Masterplan must offer the / a government / funding body long term security. The Glenside site will be developed

by Cedar woods into a new ‘suburb’ and life will be much the same [or possibly better] for the local and extended Glenside Area, and the City of Adelaide.

THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND RENEWAL SA’S LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA Renewal SA’s primary objectives is the renewal of neighbourhoods. Secondary to this is the ‘promotion; of economic development, via the ‘harnessing of private sector and not-for-profit investment’. Renewal SA’s, objectives are directed to saving trees, generating money, accommodating cars, locking up the bad guys and creating safe communities. Words like ‘sustainability’ and ‘economy’ prevail.

Renewal SA sets its long term targets for 2045. Renewal SA claims that resources in the metropolitan require protection, as dwellings are forecast to increase by 85%. coinciding with this growth, Renewal SA hopes to increase the ‘greeen-li-ness’ of the city, achieve a sustainable source of high quality water, reduce landfill waste and carbon usage, and increase the amount of street trees, so to help the landmass under the city expel summer heat,

and shade the concrete during the day. By providing economic activities, Renewal SA claims it can increase economic activity, by what means or how, we are yet to see. The government focuses its efforts on key corridors north, east, south and west, and plans to increase the heights of residential buildings of the blocks lining the corridors, and widen the roads for automobiles.

Critically, Renewal SA claims energy efficiency, yet is happy to approve and recommend developments such as the Glenside Development, and the port Adelaide Development site, both of which are not carbon neutral, and pro-automobile. Crucially, instead of configuring the Glenside Development site to be pro-public transport, Renewal SA has sought Cedar Woods support to widen the Fullerton road-Greenhill road intersection, to allow increased passage of motor vehicles. Renewal SA’s initials objectives include the introduction of a rezoning around the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. They claim that they will achieve this whilst ‘ensuring an appropriate interface with the Adelaide Botanic Gardens’. We can assume by this they mean the development of the site, the demolition of buildings, and the building of either a private medical facility or more apartments which ‘reference’ the gardens somehow. Another great opportunity for some out-of- touch,

economically driven architecture firm to misappropriate meaning into metaphor. Similarly, it would be in their objectives, to squeeze a little space from the park-lands or from the railway yards, so to build further amenities for staff and patients on and around the new Royal Adelaide Hospital site. Within this rezoning, they claim to be able to prepare a masterplan for the mecial research facilities which occupy much of the hospital site, ‘to guide future investment and ensure legible connections are identified and maintained’ and to give the public access to high quality and affordable healthcare.

Similarly to the afore-told, are Renewal SA’s objectives for the Glenside Development site. To obtain these objectives it outlays a strategic timeline: 1] hold an ongoing community consultation, to inform the development, developer.

2] Offer the sale to private parties.

3] Commence ‘Masterplan Investigations’.

4] Initiate Ministerial permissions and preceding.

5] Masterplan prep. with the developer. Site Preparation.

6] Approval and Construction.

We criticise the objectives of Renewal SA to be overly wordy.

We acknowledge Renewal SA to be result action based, whilst ignoring its own objectives and community responses to its developments. The Glenside site is set to lose over 80 significant trees, and yet in their objectives they promote the maintenance of ’the significant trees around the [Glenside site].

All governmentsneed planning and development organisations Previously, the Government or South Australia, called it’s urban planning organisation ‘the Public Buildings Department’. The P.B.D. oversaw the development of private and public building in Adelaide and they were able to stimulate the economy by providing a decent amount of public, with the private building. Renewal SA take on a similar role, although its primary objective is geared towards private sector investment, large developments and architecture out of the public realm.

Although it lists energy efficiency as a primary objective, it widens roads and encourages energy hungry developments. Although it lists affordable housing as a primary concern and objective, affordable housing is only affordable for those who can afford it, and not for those who have little to no moneys.

Renewal SA’s objectives are objectives, and not promises or guarantee’s, they are confusing, variant in application, crossover terms are often used. The term Renewal SA is misleading.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION FOR THE GLENSIDE DEVELOPMENT SITE

On the 25 th of February, Renewal SA, on behalf of the South Australian Government, held a consultation day at the Glenside Development Site. Kath Moore and Associates summarised the findings into a report. A computer program ‘Tag Crowd’ was used to locate key words and expressions. A analysis of the word clouds has been summarised into findings and concluded on.

The proceeding report makes a short summary of their findings.

“1. Besides residential development, what other types of uses would you like to see at Glenside?” [CC p. 3] “2. To encourage well-being and safety, public spaces should include:” [p. 4] “3. Describe the housing you would like to see built at Glenside.” [p. 5] “4. Who do you think will be living here in 20 years’ time?” [p. 6] “5. What new uses could you imagine for any of the five heritage buildings that are to be adapted for reuse?” [p. 7] “6. What design features would you include to promote sustainable living at home and in public spaces?” [p. 12] “7. How would you see yourself using the open space that is provided?” [p. 13] “8. What is the ONE most important thing to you about the Glenside project?” [p. 14] “9. Can you give us an example(s) of good community engagement?” [p. 16] “10. Is there anything that you feel has not been addressed by the project objectives below?” [p.17]

To summarise: The majority of the respondee’s seem willing to conform to the direction of the questioning.

There are also a great many positivist responses, which ask for services [ie mental health facilities, community centres], recreation facilities [which cater for mixed-aged use], and as many suggestions which ask fr small business and small commercial to be included, i.e., : restaurants and cafe’s. Many cite traffic and infrastructure as in need of upgrade.

The community’s primary concern can be iterated as the relation between open space and development. As development increases, ‘open space’ is thought to be lost. Secondary to this is the ‘if’ factor; i.e., if there is to be a project, what should it be like. The responses to this are a little more complex.

Very often the respondee’s answer with suspicion or with counter to the question, for example: “1. Besides residential development, what other types of uses would you like to see at Glenside?”

Respondee: “No residential development. Retain the land as a park or expand the existing building as facilities to help the mentally ill.” [p 3 of 136, Appendix B] Respondee: “I’d like to see it left as it is. It could become a museum.” [p 3 of 136] Respondee: “Absolutely none. This is a Public site and this thieving, lying, incompetent, spendthrift government has no mandate to sell it or otherwise dispose of it. It should be redeveloped as a much needed Mental Health facility, not flogged off to government’s developer mates.” [p 3 of 136] Respondee: “None. I would like it left as a lovely open space that does not add to traffic congestion and pollution.” [p 4 of 136].

The sheer number of nils and negations throughout Appendix B, [As seen in the word clouds] forms a strong opposition to both the consultation process and any possible projects. Some of the most honest responses reveal what many would not have the courage to say: “Immigrants”, creating their own enclave!” [p.

102] “Unless you move the current patients you should not have any of the above.” [p. 104] [in response to who should live here].

“Glenside is great the way it is, don’t ruin it by building a modern day slum, which it will be with rentals and immigrants.” [p. 104]

Although we do not tolerate racism or prejudice [nor in this country, and not within our design team, a group of multi-ethnic individuals], it is useful to note that the summary and report somewhat ignore or censor these attitudes, which in respect to a community consultation is relevant as these represent the opinions and feelings of the residents. It is felt that the using of word clouds is misleading, in substituting context with emphasis. The report’s conclusion tells that the local community would most likely support a development of 1-2 stories, with renovation of the heritage buildings, leaving the majority of the space and trees, with the development of recreation areas.

A DESIGN PROCESS “ All references are relations. but not all relations are referential” - Heidegger This document introduces our analysis, investigation, and superimposing of a design onto the Glenside site. We propose residential structures of disconnectedness, the interconnectedness of paths to nowhere, as an anti-thesis to ideological urbanism and urban planning. Our proposal is imaginary and vigorous.

A stochastic design programme.

The design methodology orientates the design outcome to event as a manifest of process,

as an endeavour of serial artistry, allowing for an in-situ development of rules and praxis. The design is generative, it generates its own precedence through the synchronous layering of thought, historicity, conversation, knowledge, site investigation and analysis, a critical view of the over-digitisation of architectural practice, scaling, grafting, superimposition, and courage in the face of nothingness.

We acknowledge and adhere to the following argument:

“...Any new architecture implies the ideas of combination, that all form is the result of combination..... [that] architecture is not the result of composition, a synthesis of formal concerns and functional constraints, but rather as a complex process of transformational relations” Tschumi, Madness and Combinative.

The design thus generates its own theories, forms and directions. The design begins [began] in the hour following the first lecture. The design of the Masterplan precedes bodily knowledge of the site. The design will develop alongside site investigation and enquiry.

1. Initial Iteration: Precedence is sought in pure thought rather than glossy images or the work of others. Pure thought is the moment of unthinking, and the moment of introspection. Pure thought is found in music and in art. Pure thought is inexplicable and thus cannot generate ideas or design. It is however the surge behind the design, or the will to its power. To capture this we practice abstraction in graphic form. Tracing paper is placed over a two dimensional map of the site and its local area. We chose the Burnside council’s 1 in 100 year flood map as it relates to and includes on it the storm-water detention basin on the Glenside site. The lines are traced with intention: each line represents a possible thought direction of a stranger. The lines are chosen from houses, roads, streets, various locations. As a rule, the lines must cross from one page edge to the other [A3 size].

Much of the linework is concentrated on the site.

The tracing paper is scanned, printed, rescanned and reprinted, the colour values degrade with each re-copy. We are search for vector density and the generation of basic form via the degradation of the line. The forms will be coloured with pencil, copied, studied and played with for a number of weeks. The degraded lines will be called upon later, to aid vector and form generation.

Site Visit One: We visit the site and are captured by the disjunct of historic buildings and austere post-war prisons for the mentally ill and mentally disabled. On the first visit we spend about four hours walking in the sun. We climb into the creek. We find an old apple orchard and in an old apple tree a huge orb-web spider. We discover cages adjoined to secure buildings. We peer in the windows of the now abandoned Downey House and Cedar House North. We discover a repetitive and inhumane architectural programme. Cell-like rooms of ~10 sqm, with secure door, perspex glass, linoleum floors, painted brickwork, suicide proof fittings.

Rooms in average 10 square meters or less. We are struck by an obvious knowledge: persons suffering acute mental traumas were kept in these rooms against their will, and that the design of these rooms hat the design of these buildings hinges on either an irrational premise of scale and human space, or on a sort of revenge on the mad.

We discuss the architectural possibility with pessimism, we acknowledge that architecture can do bad things in the name of rationality, that is a systematised machine of torturous device.

Historicity: We begin an investigation into the site via historical analysis. We learn that Edward Woods [co-founder of Woods and Bagot], as the South Australian government’ chief architect designed and oversaw the building of the Administration building. We investigate the Z-wing through digitised newspaper articles. We find in the 1920’s, castor oil was commonly given to patients so to cause them bowl discomfort, which would calm them down, we read that Doctors would force patients to drink it, which sometimes caused death.

‘Depression era conditions were very bad for the patients in the Parkside asylum. ‘Misbehaving’ patients were often refused food, their daily egg or apple, left to eat scraps and stale foods.

Guards with dogs and guns patrolled the Glenside grounds as people would sneak into the grounds and steal from the orchard and the food stores.

Following the outbreak of WW2, many service men and women returned home with both acute and chronic mental health problems. A new Nurses dormitory was built [Eastwood] lodge, as were many new buildings, and Glenside the wars needed home from duty Glenside became a small city, with street signs, shops, a great pharmacy, an ‘industrial therapy’ school, where mentally disabled and mentally ill people were made to do manual labour [specifically metal work] as a part of therapy.

The historical analysis continues with a series of drawings. The design programme encourages tracing 2 dimensional forms and images. In citing the image as hyper-real, and over-real in its communication of information, tracing over photos becomes an exploration and investigation of decomposition. We void metaphor by dissolution, the photo is no longer a passive metaphor of luminance and life. We search for the language behind the photorealisitc image, we are searching by trace, we are deconstructing the photo and embedding onto it and onto ourselves a fiction, of what lies behind the image, what is it that the image wants to communicate but cannot.

Site visit Two. We return to the site on a whim and spend a few hours surveying the development site and reinvestigating the non-heritage buildings. We are struck by the austerity. We are drawn to the over-aggregated brickwork, the aluminium windows, rotting wood fixtures, rusted and leaking roofs. We are not happy and all share a pessimistic conversation. We discover ‘Ruby Glen – Nursing Home and Hospice’. We note that it is place where mentally disabled people and mentally ill people were taken to age and die. We find the ‘garden’. A gate hangs dead on its hinge. We suppose that the people who came here would have been impaired and somewhat immobile. Nevertheless, the cages surrounding the ‘gardens’, are over 10 ft tall and secured with electronic locks. We note that several pot plants hang from the verandah are still green. We understand and feel what their plastic vegetation implies. Rather disconsolate, and we are walking and talking. We note that each building conveys an extreme sense of functionality, and yet somehow message they offer lies beyond their function. We propose that the condemned buildings enclose but do not shelter. We propose that the synchronic development of large tracts of land in the name urban planning is irresponsible and idealistic, and while it gestures for shelter, it guarantees only enclosure. Dwelling is the being building, it is is the holy grail of architecture, and an architecture that so obviously avoids this, relegates itself as as anti-existant, anti-architecture.

We wonder then, if it is appropriate, to respond with erasure. To cleanse the site of suffering, to impose on it optimistic brass and flash. Thus a design direction forms, not as an imposition, but as a complex and abstract superimposition of historicity. We will scale, graft and superimpose near and contextualised topography onto the site. We will aim for a program of disconnection, and we avoid enclosure. We aim and admit to being in irony, that irony is in the self-admittance to the impossibility of trying to be a person, that the self is in disconnected relationship to the self [that is not referential], and that architecture, as an objectified human activity shares this irony, in its scaled disconnection to human mind and body, and in its disconnection to an objective means, the means and impossibility of dwelling.

Thus we recognise that the relationship between enclosure and shelter is not necessarily referential and nor is it always contingent, we assert that the use of the word reference, is in itself misleading and very often misapplied, if for only reasons of posture and self-assuredness. We recognise this as bad practice, and that the use and development of an architectural nomenclature based on such pretension results in the same sort of anti-intellectual architecture responsible for ‘Mawson Lakes’, The ‘Hames and Sharley Masterplan’, and the government of South Australia’s 30 year plan, which fixed on the congestion of inner urban areas, the widening of roads and the disposal of large tracts of open space, reveals itself as a distanced and reactive praxis of planning, and absolutely anti-intellectual in its inability to self-criticise.

With all our investigative knowledge and iterations, the tract from superimposition to design concept is immediate, as the design reveals itself in angst. It is a pessimistic design, admitting inability and intention, and it circumnavigates ideological optimism of form and connectedness. The result is a deconstruction of the Hames Sharley Masterplan via the exposition and emphasis of lacking historicity and lacking complexity, and a deconstruction of the ideologies of urban planning and urban aesthetics via our Masterplan concept for the Glenside development site: PATHS TO NOWHERE. From pessimism surges pure response.

ESSAYS HISTORICAL & THEORITICAL

Beauty, religion, and symbolism: Architecture and the City - CHANDIGARH, INDIA. JIA JIA LENG On 14-15 August 1947, at the stroke of the midnight hour, India had gained her independency after two hundred years of British colonial rule.

Although finally freed from the British colonization, the newly independent country was torn within by religious and political conflict. One reason was that the departing British had decided to partition colonial India to create a new country--Pakistan--intended to safeguard the future of the Muslim minority. The partition, however, had split the province of Punjab between India and the new state of Pakistan. The Indian province of east Punjab was faced with the problem of resettling the hordes of refugees who had poured across the border having abandoned homes, land, and possessions in what was now Pakistan. The population of the existing town of east Punjab had more than doubled due to the migration, settlings were insufficient, essential amenties were lack and inadequate. It was also felt that non of the existing towns were expandable to consist floor space for government functions and staff. Under the urgency to settle down a capital of its own, the government decided not to attempt a makeshift relocation in any existing town, but to built a new capital city in the province of Punjab, in spite of economic difficulties and political uncertainty.

An area of gently slope plain of agricultural land, with its northeast at the foothill of Himalayans was chosen from airplane reconnaissance as a new capital, considering cost, location, soil, access to water and view. .

It was then named Chandigarh, derived from a name of Hindu goddess, Chandi. (Evenson, 1966)

Unlike the nations of the West, India had not been developing a contemporary architecture of her own, so, it was free to move on any direction of designing.

The man first selected to design the master plan was Albert Mayer, a partner in the New York firm Mayer, Whittlesey, and Glass. He was recommended by Nehru as he had served Symbolism as a lieutenant colonel in India The celebrated first Prime during World War II, acquaintMinister of independent India, ed with Nehru and developing Jawaharlal Pandit Nehru, had a a familiarity with India and its strong vision for the new born problem. Matthew Nowicki latcity: “Let this be a new city, er joined the staff to the plansymbolic of freedom of India, ning of Chandigarh. unfettered by the traditions of Mayer emphasized on the situthe past, a symbol of the naation in India which was an untion’s faith in the future.” charted ground, that everything had to be tested out, unlike in The new city was planned as a United States which was sursymbol of the creative strength rounded by vested achievement of the new Republic of India. and well-developed techniques.

Seeking symbols to restore India at the time in fact, was pride and confidence after colo- unprepared, and before the nization and partition.Like other proposed master plan was even country which just retrieve realized, unfortunately, Nowicindependency, India was lack of ki was involved in an accident professionals expertise in plan- which caused his death and the ning. The government decided city planning was held back. to obtain planners from abroad who are willing to leave their work behind for three years living in India.

Although Mayer could have continue with the master plan, the government officer of Punjab, however, seized the opportunities to reassert the case and went in a search of architects and planner in Europe. They first approached Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, an English husband/wife architect team that had experience doing work abroad. Le Corbusier then joined as knowing that Pierre Jeanneret, his cousin and partner was also hired.

After a long search of architects and planners, the group was finally settled. In the name of nation pride and modernization, it is rather ironic that the independent government was actually recruiting English and French professionals. Chandigarh in the eye of some people, is a city designed by Europeans for unfortunate Hindus”, lacking of Indian culture and identity. However, considering the incompatible and incomparable skills of the local architects and planners, there were no other options to get a city built in the given period. The government had tried by looking for professionals who have experience in Indian society and culture, and regularize the architects and planners to stay in India within the period. (Prakash, 2002)

A Beauty Comparing the two master plan proposed ,Mayer’s was focusing more on aesthetic, while Nowicki’s and Le Corbusier’s were concentrating more on functionality. In Nehru’s grand plan, Chandigarh had to reflect the modern aspirations of the new Indian nation. Nehru wanted to pursue aggressive industrialization, controlled by a centralized welfare state, to catch up with the developments of the West.

Le Corbusier’s proposal with organized system and unconventional design aspect was unsurprisingly more favored by Nehru.

In Le Corbusier’s master plan, the buildings are mainly categorized by its function: Section (Superblock, Residential) V (Roads) Capitol Complex Education Recreation The beauty of flow, order spaces, utopian.

Religion Chandigarh was created because of religious conflict between Muslim and Hindu. The city was created with religious consideration. Hierachy of caste system in the Indian society is the most symbolic and significant part of its religion, Hindu.

The master plan tried to merge the difference between classes.

India, the humane and profound civilization. Essential joy of the Hindu principle.

References Everson, N. (1966). Chandigarh.

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Kalia,R. (1999). Chandigarh: The Making of an Indian City. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Beauty, religion, and symbolism: Architecture and the City - JERUSALEM. NUR IZRIN NADHIRA MOHD ZAHIDI

Abstract Jerusalem is one of the three holiest cities for Muslims. Around 16th and 17th of century, most of the buildings and monuments in Jerusalem were being used for religious purposes. Generally, this essay will be discussing on how the architecture form in Jerusalem; commercial buildings, vernacular building, monuments, streets and pathways, ornaments and domes correlates with the context of development of religion that happened on site. Also will be discuss on what is the significance given

by Turkish Government during the Ottoman Era, the major Islamic dynasty of International stature in architectural context.

Book: The Architecture of Ottoman Jerusalem: an Introduction Jerusalem shared with these cities the formula traditionally followed in Arab cities, whereby public buildings were concentrated in the city centre crisscrossed by major arteries with the private residential further out and linked by smaller, irregular streets and dead-endstreets (culs-de-sac) During Ottoman period, major Levantine cities, both the scale and population of Jerusalem are small. Therefore, Jerusalem cannot be heavily built.

But despite this setback, the city intermittently played its part in the wider context of Muslim religious life during Ottoman period. –pg.38 The Ottomans were the last major Islamic dynasty of international stature to rule Jerusalem.

Book: Jerusalem.

The door and gateway thus fulfilled slightly different pupose: one was an entrance to the Haram from city, the other was a symbol of a suq (an Arab market/bazaar) in the Holy place. It’s religious meaning to the faithful and its character as a symbol of the victory over the crusades rather than its political and economic significance.

Follow that the existing pavement and in general the surface planning of the Haram were for most part Muslim creations pg.

60 “…assume that to have been a Herodian creation for the Jewish Temple” pg. 60 “Dome of Rock which mentions exclusively the Caliph’s intent to compete with Christian monuments” pg. 151 “…it is the Suleymanthe Magnificent who sponsored the last major overhaul of the building and who provided it with its beautiful exterior tile decoration. “ pg.143 “I interpreted Dome of Rock as a monument celebrating the victorious presence of Islam in the Christian city of Jerusalem by resacralizing with the new and final revelation a space made holy by Judaism.”

“The style and vocabulary of its mosaics seemed to me as correctly derived from the prevailing high styles of Late Antique and early Christian Art.” “..the Umayyad (the first dynasty of islam) patrons were in fact affected or inspired by the one “monument” in their tradition the Ka’aba in Mecca.

“All of this means that the visual impression of Ka’aba was that of a colourful textile under the impact of winds and covering a clearly delineated geometric shape” Chapter: Historical Topography.

During the Iron Age, it affects ideologically and religiously on Jerusalem later on. But they did not affect topologically. Then, in 37-4 BC, Herod Of The Great who has been rule the Jerusalem and made the transformation into the land by built a Jewish Temple. After a while, it was destroyed and was replaced with Roman Temple as jeruslem was conquered by the Roman.

But did not have an exact period of time. In the early 4th century,

HUMAN SPACE ARE SATISFYING SPACE ARKADIUS BELOV

Abstract The modern-era rationalisation of city-scape and ordering of individualised space was driven by the neo-platonic quest for pure moral signification. The co-incident pressure, and desire-force driving this phenomena is the fear of disease, and the banishment of disease as an evil force.

It was the bubonic plague that manifest as the lepers’ return into the colony. Here she would face a new and more awful form of exclusion. Exclusion and from within the crowd. The panoptic society utilises a reverse logic so to task her objectives. She, with an omnipresent gaze, watches the crowd from within. She is the segregation of individualised space and the ordering of movement, the insertion of bodies into specific places as specific times. Both burdened and driven by economic argument, her power is capillary in reach and micro-logical in effect. The leper is the mark of the plague, and the leper underlies the human project of social exclusion [Foucault 199]. The segregating aspects of the plague surge past the event, to become the political force of the surveillance state, and the model disciplinary project which in force remains to this day.

This was realised through two through forms, one material, and one social: architecture and the exclusive possibilities offered by architectural form and the ordering of space, and, the new, subtle, and far reaching micrologies of power, which, swirl together as an inexplicable dialectic: the ordering of a panoptic space promotes and encourages the micro logical power exchanges in the everyday world, which in turn re-affirms and justifies the architectural codes which shelter it.