‘Although clarity or legibility is by no means the only important property of a beautiful city, it is of special importance when considering environments at the urban scale of size, time, and complexity…we must consider [then] not just the city as a thing itself, but the city being perceived by its inhabitants.’ (Lynch 1960) In his publication The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch comprehensively illustrates how the language of a city is read and experienced by its residents. Indeed, within the built environment there exists a complexity which, at a macro scale, is incredibly difficult to fully comprehend. As such, in order to facilitate a holistic understanding of ‘the city’, it must be further analysed from the human perspective: the micro scale. Ultimately the city can be understood as a systematic stratification of fundamental elements whose total orchestration determines the overall clarity and experience of the urban environment. The City as Dialogue As with any successful piece of writing, the language of a city often maintains its own narrative; where there exists ‘subtext(s)’ and a specific ‘focus’. Within this, recurring themes might also be observed. Wholly dependent on context, temporal and geological, a city’s narrative develops accordingly. Subsequently, two contrasting city ‘types’ can be identified: organic and planned. Although as Kostof (1991) observes; ‘the fact is that no city, however arbitrary its form may appear to us, can said to be ‘unplanned’’. However, as the former suggests, the macro analysis of an ‘organic’ urban development can usually be observed as solid mass within which space has been naturally carved and constructed, evident in cities such as Rome and Venice (or indeed most Italian cities); this can also be relevant within the latter: Manhattan, New York, provides this contemporary relevance. Manhattan is somewhat of a paradox. Evidently arguments can be presented from two perspectives: the first, the city and its grid, specifically, might be observed as a rhythmic sequence of separate solid entities. The island itself, however, can equally be viewed as ‘solid mass’ within which the grid has been overlaid and engraved, where the void space becomes a structural entity. Clearly, both views maintain a simultaneous constant: solidity and permeability. With this in mind, it is of crucial importance to highlight the distinct similarities between the city of Manhattan and the illustrious city of Venezia; a characteristically ‘carved’ entity. Significantly, both cities can be fundamentally read and comprehended in a strikingly similar manner.
‘For their particular physical and cultural conditions of insularity, Manhattan and Venice, in different ways, rejected the architectural theories and praxis of architectural modernism, and for their resistance and resilience they can suggest ideas and operations for the contemporary city’. (Stoppani 2011)
1
Giambattista Nolli’s 1748 explorative figure ground plan of Rome [Fig. 1] is a concept which exists as a catalyst for the comprehension of ‘the city’ at the macro level. It presents the plan of the city in its most fundamental form; the black indicative of the ‘building tissue’, and the white as the ‘public’ void spaces and places where there is heightened public activity; churches specifically. This type of mapping exercise permits a broad understanding of how a city functions at the human scale; where the specific permeability of what appears to be solid mass can be progressively determined as the ‘syntax’ of the city.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
The concept and application of the ‘Nolli Plan’ further enables the identification of what might be considered as the specific ‘focus’ of the city. Evidently, the Canal Grande sustains prominence within Venice [Fig. 2], its meandering course a natural division of the island; while Central Park takes, somewhat literally, centre stage within Manhattan [Fig. 3]. Curiously, the map of Rome distinguishes several foci: the aforementioned numerous churches dictate equilibrium between public space and ‘general’ building mass. Conclusively, at this macro, two-dimensional scale, the overall composition of the city can be understood. Perceptive Subtext Typically the response to our environment is one of tangible experience which occurs within the limited zone of human perception. Thus it is necessary for an associative comparison to emerge; the city as a dwelling for example; ‘streets seen as hallways, city squares as public living rooms, and the surrounding urban fabric as walls to the room’. (Graves 2009) The familiar scale of domesticity therefore permits an initial comprehension of the fundamental human mechanisms of the city. As discussed thus far, the city exists and can be comprehensively analysed from many perspectives: significantly, the macro and the micro level. Perhaps though, there is some intermediary between the two where a correspondence occurs. The labyrinthine city of Venice, for example, distinctively retains a series of carved, public spaces within which a series of linkages and hierarchies can be determined. Observed from a ‘sub-macro’ perspective, as it were, Edmund Bacon (1974) highlights the specific interrelation of spaces which exist around the Piazza di San Marco. 2
Fig. 4
Within this example a distinct hierarchy is evident; the dominance of the Piazza S. Marco can be clearly determined, and, not unlike the meandering waterways percolating the city, ‘tributary’ connective spaces provide a clearly defined route between smaller, unique public squares. [Fig. 4] Thus is the ‘subtext’ of the ever evolving city dialogue. Further to this, Bacon attempts to illustrate the ‘tangible’. Within the same drawing he depicts the paving pattern, the placement of steps and bridges; all of which fundamentally contribute to ‘the unity of experience’. (Bacon 1974) From this perspective, the ‘sub –macro’ scale, one can begin to determine the direct correlation between the reading of the void space and, ultimately, the activation of this space by its inhabitants. Transgressions and Exceptions ‘The city constructs a strong and layered image…the core of such image is the product of gradual constructions, of condensations and accumulations of spaces , images, significations and identities.’ (Stoppani 2011) Both Venice and Manhattan’s geographical insularity ultimately dictates a unique interiority within each city. While a figure ground analysis suitably permits a comprehensive understanding of planar Venizia, it does not necessarily present a fully accurate, tangible image of vertiginous Manhattan; where public space is often extruded some distance above street level. As such, an accurate representation and reading of the ‘city inhabited’ might perhaps only be achieved through a layered system of Nolli’s. Having highlighted this, however, it is of course entirely relevent to employ the fundamental figure ground plan in order to fully appreciate the principle dialogue of the city: the orthogonal grid system. At a superficial level, Manhattan exists as the epitome of ‘order’. The predetermined grid overlayed on top of a precisely determined natural land mass evokes a particularly rigid image of the city. However, the repeatable process inherent within this implied ‘rigidity’ conversely permits adaptation and allows the integration of exceptions within the predetermined structure. With the conception of the 1811 Commissioners’ Plan the 3
Manhattan Grid was perceived, only, in its two dimensions, thus permitting infinite possibilities within the thirddimension: ‘an un-dreamt of freedom for three-deimensional anarchy…the city can be at the same time ordered and fluid, a metropolis of rigid chaos.’ (Koolhaas 1994) Settled at the core of the unrelenting grid system however, Central Park exists as an extraordinary, vast exception. As the apparent natural ‘centre piece’ of the city, Central Park exists as an apotheosis of synthetic Manhattan; ‘whose design manipulates and domesticates the nature of the island to appropriate it to the metropolitan narrative’. (Stoppani 2011) Ultimately, it exists as an attempt to reinstate topographical conditions which, today, are apparently irrelevant and indistinguishable beneath the dense, urban fabric. Aesthetically deceptive, the extensive artificial-natural landscape delineates a further sub-stratum of the city’s dialogue. Simultaneously, it rejects and defines the Manhattan Grid; as does Broadway. Maintaining an explicit diagonal route, perceived at the macro scale Broadway exists as an apparent ‘fracture’ within the grid system. However, a closer analysis of its micro-effect reveals a particularly clear image of subsequent transgressions within the orthogonal spatial pattern. [Fig. 6]
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Evidently, the regularity of the Grid is interrupted at the intersection of ‘subversive’ Broadway. Thus there is the production of irregular trapezoidal and triangular blocks. The Fuller (Flatiron) Building [Fig. 5], architecturally renowned, exemplifies the spatial dynamism created at such an intersection and, crucially, exists as a specific ‘focus’ or reference point, within the monotonous cityscape. Kevin Lynch (1960) might further describe this particular junction as a ‘node’; a characteristic juncture which, from the human perspective, retains an explicit prominence. Here, the specific positioning of the off-axis street creates a juxtaposition which consequentially enhances and redefines the ‘grid effect’. It can be understood then, that the insertion and integration of a single conflicting element can often succeed in the redefinition and enhancement of the overall composition within the city.
4
Cohabitation To further facilitate the reading of ‘the city’, it is essential to recall the parameters which are fundamental to the design and making of the specificities within the urban environment. As islands, both Manhattan and Venice sustain a particular affinity with their liquid boundaries; both however sustain divergences within this relationship. There must be coexistence between what is defined and what is variable: space and edge, both literal and metaphorical, must coexist. A single factor determines the nature of this coexistence: predetermined physicality. Manhattan Island, physically, exists solely as a single entity; the city of Venice exists as a series of islands, interconnected through time: a labyrinthine network of solid mass and fluid waterways. Fundamentally, Venice maintains a degree of unrivalled, literal permeability to which Manhattan is the antithesis: its dense urban fabric sustaining a position of defiance against the forces of nature. Thus the characteristics of the spatial structure within the two cities manifest themselves accordingly. Within Manhattan there exists a rather literal, regimented ‘construction of spaces’. Venice meanwhile exhibits physical and spatial characteristics which are ultimately representative of the amicable coexistence between the urban and natural environment. Exclusively a pedestrianized city, the spatial structure retains a particularly tangible impression and is intrinsically domesticated in scale. A scale enhanced, principally, by its unique liquid stratum; typified by the meandering waterways percolating the urban fabric. Naturally, these tributaries are a determining factor in the sinuous form of the built environment and, significantly, enhance the act of transition within; since the activation of a space is established by the movement through it and indeed, to it. Thus there is the ultimate transitional device: the bridge. Fundamentally, such an element provides a physical means of crossing from urban space to urban space, simultaneously separated, carved and connected by the variable body of water. Alternative Spatial Delineations ‘…this winding of the streets will make the passenger at every step discover a new structure, and the front and door of every house will face the middle of the street’ (Alberti, cited in Kostof 1991) ‘Man walks in a straight line because he has a goal and knows where he is going.’ (Le Corbusier, cited in Kostof 1991) These contrasting arguments describe, rather perfectly, the spatial structures of both Venice and Manhattan respectively. Le Corbusier, typically, succinctly defines the ‘modern metropolis’ and its ultimate efficiency. Alberti, meanwhile, describes the subtleties and complexities of human emotion concealed behind that mechanistic 5
façade. With Corbusier’s ideology there is, at the same time, the notion of certainty and of complete disconnection; as though the predetermined course and destination renders the interaction with the urban fabric irrelevant. Evidently, this concept stands in complete opposition to Giambattista Nolli’s explorative idea concerning the interrelation of public space and building tissue. Typically, then, Alberti’s notion of unfolding interaction between man and space: space and building, further sustains the timeless relevance of Nolli’s philosophies. Thus, the reading of ‘the city’, specifically as a ‘structure of spaces’ occurs at numerous levels: the macro, ‘submacro’, micro and the ‘sub-micro’ (the individual’s perception). Certainly, to facilitate a holistic understanding of the mechanisms of the city there is contemporary relevance in analysing the paradigm islands of Manhattan and Venice within this scale spectrum.
6
References
Bacon, E (1974) Design of Cities. Penguin Books Graves Jr. C (2009) The Genealogy of Cities. Kent, Ohio: The Kent University State Press Koolhaas, R (1994) Delirious New York. Monacelli Press Kostof, S (1991) The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Lynch, K (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press Stoppani, T (2011) Paradigm Islands: Manhattan and Venice. New York: Routledge
Images
1. Rome Nolli Plan [online] Available at: http://cityeu.wordpress.com/category/maps/ [accessed on 22 March 2012] 2. Venice figure ground map [online] Available at: http://dereknause.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/pedestriancities.html [accessed on 22 March 2012] 3. Manhattan, New York figure ground map [online] Available at: http://urbanrefine.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/manhattan-figure-ground-plan.html [accessed on 22 March 2012] 4. Bacon, E. Venetian spatial connections [book] 5. The Fuller/Flatiron Building, Manhattan [online] Available at: http://www.djibnet.com/photo/flatiron/flatironbuilding-new-york-city-3573869382.html [accessed on 22 March 2012] 6. Graves Jr. C. Broadway detail [book]
7