N.Zagora, D. Šamić
Targeted outcome: urban rooms
“
If (as the philosophers maintain) the city is like some large house, and the house is in turn like some small city, cannot the various parts of the house – atria, xysti, dining rooms, porticos, and so on – be considered miniature buildings?” Leon Battista Alberti (Alberti, 1988)
In response to fading urban qualities and heightened alienation in contemporary urban environments, domesticity, interiorisation and intimacy play increasingly important roles in redefining the character of public space. The concept of interiorisation can inspire new methodological approaches, like employing interior design tools to enhance the quality of public spaces. The subject of urban rooms has been interwoven in previous discussions as the leitmotif of this book, portrayed as spatially contained urban spaces, certain features of which can be compared to interior spaces. They also epitomise the desired outcome of urban void interventions, and provide a model of reactivated, vibrant public spaces. The expression urban rooms suggests an ambiguity of interior and urban space. How are the two constituent words related? Do they make an analogous or antagonistic pair? Are urban rooms inclined towards the contemporary theory of urban interiors and interior urbanism? What is the link between urban voids and urban rooms? In addition to seeking the answers to these questions, this section will give an overview of the most significant theoretical perspectives on the dichotomy of interior and urban spaces since early modern times, and throughout the modern and postmodern eras. Last, an insight into contemporary discourse will differentiate and expound the definitions of terms related to urban interiors, interior urbanism, and public interiors. 206
