Nicolas Shepherd Y3 ESSAY TOPIC 4 100012622 14/12/12
“More specifically, we reject that conception of functionalism dictated by an ingenuous empiricism which holds that function brings from together and in themselves constitute urban artifacts and architecture.” (Rossi, 1984) In his book, ‘The Architecture of the City’, Aldo Rossi conducts an analysis of the formation and evolution of the city in terms of its construction and architecture (1984). Rossi looks at the city through the analysis of a time period in which the city has formed and adapted. Through this analysis, Rossi proposes his stance on the relationship between the idea of functionalism and the key man made historical and cultural landmarks that exist in the urban environment (1984). Rossi refers to a list of examples throughout ‘The Architecture of the City’ which explain his ideologies of the concept of function through the analysis of these important urban features. To comment on the impact of a simplistic functionalism upon the built environment, it is first necessary to understand this environment. Rossi begins by writing about the relationship of the city and the ’urban artifact’; “This method, presented as a theory of urban artifacts, stems from the identification of the city itself as an artifact and from its division into individual building as dwelling areas.” (1984) ‘Urban artifacts’ as a phrase is derived from the French ‘faite urbaine’, which provides a much deeper and analytical understanding (1984). Faite urbaine does not only suggest a man made cultural feature, but also includes the historical, geographical and architectural connection, not only to the city, but to the individual (1984). It is with this understanding of the urban form that Rossi writes in ‘The Architecture of the City’, therefore signifying the importance of the artifact in understanding its relation to functionalism. The idea that an urban artifact can be likened to a work of art is something which Rossi discusses; “…there is something in the nature of urban artifacts that renders them very similar-and not only metaphorically-to a work of art.” (1984) To apply this theory to the city would suggest that the uniqueness of an urban feature could be likened to a sculpture, or a painting. Each one has specific qualities and details which cannot be found anywhere else, the only exception perhaps being found in artworks and urban features created, either directly or as a result, by the same artist. When one looks at the works of J.M.W Turner, it is apparent that they were painted by the same individual, even though a progression and development of style may be apparent. One is aware that Turner used specific techniques, such as using a heavily diluted mix of oil paint to give the illusion of atmosphere and distance, thus possessing the appearance of a watercolour painting. One is also familiar of the instance in which Turner had himself strapped to the mast of a ship entering a storm, so he could experience and therefore better convey the feeling of the elements onto the canvas. Likewise, an urban designer or architect will display a common theme, and therefore create a similar and noticeably related series of urban qualities. Take for example the work of Georges-Eugène Haussmann, who was responsible for re-designing Paris (Frampton, 1980). One can recognise the similarities between the streets and alleyways that he forged. However, Rossi is not only distinguishing a metaphor, but making a comparison. Urban features in themselves can be works of art, and as with a painting or sculpture,
must be experienced to be understood properly. For example, the features of the old town square in Warsaw can only be understood through firsthand experience. Imagine sitting on the steps of the statue of Sigismund III Waza, resting against the chiselled stonework as the low evening sun shines, illuminating the enclosed square which stretches out below you. The dim red sunlight gives the cobbled ground a soft rippling texture, and makes the sandstone façade of the royal castle which towers beside you radiantly ablaze. Around the east and south enclosures of the square sit large areas of tables where young couples and friends eat to the sound of a man gently plucking the melodies of Debussy in the distance. Such details of urban artworks are therefore only noticed and understood when experienced. Rossi continues by suggesting a definition of the city as a collection of key urban features. The possibility is therefore suggested that the city itself could be a work of art (1984). In discussing the function of important urban spaces which, in themselves, form a city, it is important to understand the function of the city as a whole. In his book titled, ‘A Theory of Good City Form’, Kevin Lynch writes regarding function as a theory, and how it affects the city (Lynch, 1981). Lynch studies the function of the city, and explains how this determines how the city develops and changes; “A city can be explained only by telling a story…” (1981) Lynch regards the historical aspects of a city to be vital in determining its past and present functions. The historical development of the city as a concept, as well as in the particular, appears to be handled with the same respect as Rossi handles it in regard to Faite urbaine. Lynch continues to create a system by which he defines the city, and therefore its individual urban entities, by its function (1981). For example, a city can be classified by its main functionality, which exists to support an economy. A city’s economy may be based on agriculture, or the mining of natural resources. The economical activities create residential zones of correlating social classes. Such demographics can help to explain the connection between industry and residential, and therefore explain the spaces and urban features which exist between, through the analysis of factors, such as age and ethnicity (1981). Lynch explains urban space as a negative imprint of this; “Space is a neutral medium through which social groups communicate with one another. The city is a quantitative distribution of workplaces and living places.” (1981) “…the identification of the city as an artifact and from its division into individual buildings and dwelling areas.” (1984) Rossi explains the city as a singular artifact, which is divided into entities, such as places to work and live (1984). Applied through the analysis of the statistical zoning of the city by Lynch, it is these individual elements which create what Rossi refers to as the urban artifact (1981). Rossi analyses the entire city and its narrative as a form of architecture in itself; a combination of the individual elements of architecture which constitute the city (1984). The urban space, according to Lynch is further determined by the surrounding context (1981). The existence of individual items of architecture within a city is the primary objective. The formation of urban spaces succeeds its surrounding context. Through the application of Lynches theory, it is the type of context which determines the type of urban space (1981). The urban space, in this example, is a negative impression of the residential and industrial landscape on the townscape. This theory can be applied to different areas of the city, and therefore the different resulting architectural categories found in
that area. Lynch writes of a distinction in social classes within the city. As these social classes change in different zones of the city, the work environments also chance (1981). Therefore, the faite urbaine is relative not just to the architectural elements of the city, but to the condition of the individual. Rossi draws a distinctive relationship between the urban place and the function and form of that place (1984). To understand this relationship, and how it affects, if at all, the urban artifact, it is important to understand Rossi’s stance on function. Rossi believed that the function should not be considered when attempting to understand the form and architecture of an urban feature (1984). Rossi uses the argument of the transformation of the city to suggest that the form of an urban feature is more relevant that its function (1984). Whilst the function of an urban space may change as the city around it changes and develops, the form remains consistent. The function of the urban artifact is relative to the variable status of the city. The same space within a historic city, for example, could have had a long history of different uses. The fundamental principles of the architecture cannot therefore be necessarily based on function. To grasp the analysis of the form and function of an adapting urban environment, it is beneficial to understand the transformation. “Common experience confirms what the most through studies have indicated: that a city changes completely every fifty years.� (1984) Even though individuals who have lived in a city for an extended period of time may not easily recognise the changes happening around them, this does not necessarily mean that the changes do not occur (1984). The adaption and development of cities may accelerate over specific periods of time, due to political occurrences (1984). For example, Haussmann accelerated the development of Paris by forging and widening the streets, to allow for the growing economy (1980). This had a dramatic transformation on the urban qualities. The widened streets allowed for trees to be planted, as well as allowing for the addition of seating, and new designs for streetlights. The increased light and ventilation into these places dramatically transformed their possessive quality (1980). As Rossi explains, times of struggle, such as war and natural disaster, accelerate the process of change within a city by summoning for the reconstruction of certain elements (1984). Rossi continues by stating that the transformation of a city, whether happening over a short or long period of time, is rooted in the economy (1984). A period of industrialisation could have dramatic effects to the places within a city. A period in which the economy is prosperous will have a positive effect on the individuals and their social welfare. A period of depression may likewise have an effect of a similar magnitude. As the economy changes, the city and its function may also change (1984). Rossi categorises the change of the city into three main events of history. During the middle ages, the workplace was included within residential. This period then led into the industrial revolution, in which the workplace and the residence were very much separated. During this period, work places were grouped into categories, relating to the different social classes which worked in them. This led towards factories and heavy industry being grouped together, away from higher class working environments, such as offices. Likewise, housing was grouped and categorised by social class. This then transformed into a period marked by independence. The individual was granted freedom by improved public services, to live in a place of their choosing, regardless of the location of their workplace. This transformation in the history of the city leads to changes in its urban spaces (1984).
As the elements of the city change in function but not in form, the quality of its urban spaces changes. To conclude, Aldo Rossi presents an image of the city as a work of art, containing a vast and unique range of urban qualities. Rossi dismisses the naïve analysis of urban artifacts and architecture, stating that the form and substance of urban features cannot be explained by their function. Rossi’s theory demonstrates that there is more to understanding an urban artifact. Analysis of the city as a collection of artifacts, and therefore an artifact and work of art in itself, allows for a study in relation to the history, culture, geography, and architecture. Through considering the story of the city, an understanding can be formed of the spaces composed within the city. By studying the spaces within the city as that city changes, an assessment on the relevance of function and form to these changes can be made. Urban artifacts must also change as the city changes, because the city itself exists as a group of relating urban spaces, and is itself an artifact. As the function of the city changes, and the form remains consistent, so the same is true for the individual elements of which it is formed. An urban artifact can be adaptively used for many functions, but can only possess one form. Therefore, the form emerges as the superior type, as when the function changes with the collective, the form remains regular.
References Frampton, K (1980). Modern Architecture: a Critical History. 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson. p2426. Lynch, K (1981). A Theory of Good City Form. Massachusetts: MIT Press. p327-343. Rossi, A (1984). The Architecture of the City. Massachusetts: MIT Press. p3-11, 21-29, 32-35, 40, 41, 46, 47, 55-57, 60, 61, 139-141, 158-160 Bibliography Cullen, G (1966). The Concise Townscape. Oxford: The Architectural Press. Frampton, K (1980). Modern Architecture: a Critical History. 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson. p2426. Lynch, K (1981). A Theory of Good City Form. Massachusetts: MIT Press. p327-343. McEwan, C (2012). Aldo Rossi lecture series. Rattray, C (2012). Urban Humanities lecture series Rossi, A (1984). The Architecture of the City. Massachusetts: MIT Press. p3-11, 21-29, 32-35, 40, 41, 46, 47, 55-57, 60, 61, 139-141, 158-160