Workshop international 2014 - La Croix Rousse - In between spaces by Isabelle Gourlat

UP & DOWN THE HILL OF THE CROIX-ROUSSE Worshop IP 31 MARCH / 11 APRIL 2014 lyon

2013-1-TR1-ERA10-48724 ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME The Erasmus Intensive Programme 2014 Lyon Workshop Booklet EDITORS: Özlem LAMONTRE-BERK François TRAN Cover & Page Design : Benjamin POIGNON Benoît BRET Claire JOACHIM Vianney CHARMETTE Old Maps : Aurélia DELSIGNORE Mariane PLANCHAIS Mickael CUILLERAT Old Images, Posters and Postcards : Adam LOURIKI Nedjma MAURY Vanessa BRUGGER

Montage & Layout : Adrien MAGIS Anaëlle KISCHENAMA Estelle MARTIN-LYET Etienne FRESSONNET Isabelle GOURLAT Marie LUDMANN Michela DONATO Violetta APASSOVA Posters & Pamphlet : Amandine RIOU Margaux DUTILLY Marine BOUVERESSE Sophie RUYER

Blog : Antoine AVALLE Baptiste BERNARD Jason HOULEUX Rémi GODET Ugo NATALONI Certificates : Léa MORGAND Fernand GUISELIN Sarah COUDRY

Up and down the hill of the Croix-Rousse

A Comparative Study of the in-between places to urban life, “Passing, Passage, Arcades” as semi-public spaces

2013-1-TR1-ERA10-48724 ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME

2014. LYON 3

Ecole Nationale SupĂŠrieure dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Architecture de Lyon 3 rue Maurice-Audin BP 170 69512 Vaulx-en-Velin cedex t:+334 78 79 50 50 e-mail: ensal@lyon.archi.fr msfau_passage@msgsu.edu.tr

TEACHERS coordinator, Güzin Konuk, gkonuk@msgsu.edu.tr François Tran francois.tran@lyon.archi.fr Özlem Lamontre-Berk ozlem.lamontre-berk@lyon.archi.fr Brigitte Sagnier brigitte.sagnier-minguet@lyon.archi.fr Christian Marcot christian.marcot@lyon.archi.fr Gülşen Özaydın gulsenozaydin@yahoo.fr Figen Kafescioglu figenorcun@yahoo.com Inci Olgun incis@msgsu.edu.tr Sinem Özgür f.sinemdomanicli@gmail.com Derya Altiner derya.altiner@gmail.com Carlo Ravagnati carlo.ravagnati@polito.it Marcella Graffione marcella.graffione@polito.it

2013-1-TR1-ERA10-48724 ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME

2014. LYON 5

FOREWORD

The Erasmus Intensive Programme named as ‘A Comparative Study of the contribution of in-between places to urban life, «Passing, Passage, Arcades» as semi-public spaces’ relies on the outgoing studies that have been done since 2009 by MSFAU and ENSAL basically on the notion of “passing”. In 2012, PT joined the team and the subject extended as semi-public places including transmitting. The basic aim was to study among the intersection of different scales; architectural and urban scales.

the presentations according to an identified issue every year. In these workshops the objective is to make the student detect, analyse and suggest spatial designs on the semi-public transition places that are placed in the determined areas. These workshops aim to improve the students’ experiences on developing a solution on a specific area, to make them look from a different perspective towards the issue of designing semi-public places.

Last year the three years IP program started with 15 days of workshop “by_pass_ing karakoy” in Istanbul. The main aim of the workshop was to collect data, accumulate the knowledge in order to compare different forms and make proposals on semipublic transition places in such different cultures and geographies. With “passing” notion as the main topic, the subtitles can be exemplified as; their formation process during the history, physical features in the city morphology, physical and social determiners that compose them, what kind of a life do these places carry, how can these traditional/local places change according to today’s expectations and requirements.

The final product including all these data and the suggestions produced during the workshops and meetings of the whole project made every year, is published.

It is aimed that attendant schools organize student workshops which is generated by

‘The ‘_by Pass_ing Karaköy Workshop’ was a fruitful experience... The final projects showed us how in a short time period existence of different cultures could enrich a design process, how enthusiasm could bring dynamism and productivity to the studio hours and how workshop ideas could be useful sources for future projects. This encouraged us to continue our aim in order to realize this experience of ‘working on in-between spaces’ in our other two cities, Lyon and Turin. Therewith the workshop of 2014 is organised in Lyon, in order to work on the ‘traboules’ of this city and to concentrate on the subject of ‘transitional spaces’.

CONTENT

0_ INTRODUCTION

1_ REFERENCE TEXTS ON SUBJECT ‘TRANSITIONAL SPACES’

12 14

Güzin Konuk, coordinator In-Between : The Natural in Architecture and Culture Architecture from the Outside - Part Two Transitional Spaces Essays on Virtual and Real Space Elizabeth Grosz The Open City // Conference LSE Cities, 2006 Richard Sennett

Walking in the City // Part III Spatial Practices - Chapter VII Extract from the book : The Practice of Everyday Life Michel de Certeau

2_ CROIX-ROUSSE DISTRICT

Little Story of the Croix-Rousse Extract from the book : Lyon colline de la Croix-Rousse Plateau – Pentes , Découvrir la ville autrement Corinne Poirieux ( with the collaboration of André Pelletier )

31 33

Maps 44 3_ UP & DOWN, THE HILL OF THE CROIX-ROUSSE

63 64 66

4_ PROGRAM

5_ STUDY GROUPS

6_ REFERENCES

7_ OUTCOMES (TO BE CONTINUED...)

Aim, characteristics, objectives Methodology, assignment, questions of the workshop

Operations, suggestions, analysis, notes....

INTRODUCTION

Pof. Dr. Güzin Konuk, coordinator Erasmus is the European Union’s flagship education and training programme enabling so many students to study abroad each year. The aim of the Intensive Programme (IP) is to create collaborative working environment to share the experience. This IP started within the leadership of Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University (MSFAU), Faculty of Architecture and École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Lyon (ENSAL) and Politecnico di Torino. This is a very important collaboration between these three institutions to create a new strategy. “A Comparative Study of the in-between places to urban life, ‘Passing, Passage, Arcades’ as semi-public spaces” is the name of our project. The project started in Istanbul between 25 February-8 March 2013 «by_pass_ing Karaköy» workshop. Now, we will be moving to Lyon for a greatest study; «UP&DOWN: The Hill of the CroixRousse» workshop between 31 March-12 April 2014 in Lyon an than to Turin next year. As a coordinator, I believe this study will give a wonderfull oppoturnity to learn to share to create for all of us.

The purpose of this international activities is to increase mobility of students and academicians in an international environment and to work intensively in an international setting in very short period of time, producing high qualified results. The aim of the IP is also a chance of meeting different cultures and manners of working and facing other worlds, which contributes to our understanding of our quality and position in an international field. More than this IP is the best opportunity to work together and to understand each others in an academic field. I believe this will be a good practice and productive work and friendship for all of us. Best wishes.

[1] View from the rooftops of the Croix-Rousse

1. REFERENCES TEXTS ON SUBJECT ‘TRANSITIONAL SPACES’

ARCHITECTURE FROM THE OUTSIDE Part Two Transitional Spaces Essays on Virtual and Real Space In-Between : The Natural in Architecture and Culture Elizabeth Grosz

In-Between What does it mean to reflect upon a position, a relation, a place related to other places but with no place of its own: the position of the in-between? The in-between is a strange space, not unlike the choric space that Plato, in the Timaeus, posed as the condition of all material existence. For Plato, chora is that which, lacking any substance or identity of its own, falls in between the ideal and the material; it is the receptacle or nurse that brings matter into being, without being material; it nurtures the idea into its material form, without being ideal. The position of the in- between lacks a fundamental identity, lacks a form, a givenness, a nature. Yet it is that which facilitates, allows into being, all identities, all matter, all substance. It is itself a strange becoming, which is somehow, very mysteriously in Plato, the condition of all beings and the mediation of Being. There is a certain delicious irony in being encouraged to think about a strange and curious placement, a position that is crucial to understanding not only identities, but also that which subtends and undermines them, which makes identities both possible and impossible. The space of the in-between is that which is not a space, a space without

boundaries of its own, which takes on and receives itself, its form, from the outside, which is not its outside (this would imply that it has a form) but whose form is the outside of the identity, not just of an other (for that would reduce the in-between to the role of object, not of space) but of others, whose relations of positivity define, by de- fault, the space that is constituted as in-between. The space of the in-between is the locus for social, cultural, and natural transformations: it is not simply a convenient space for movements and realignments but in fact is the only placeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the place around identities, between identitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;where becoming, openness to futurity, outstrips the conservational impetus to retain cohesion and unity. My argument will deal explicitly with the implications of what might be described as a posthumanist understanding of temporality and identity, an understanding that is bound up with seeing politics, movement, change, as well as space and time, in terms of the transformation and realignment of the relations between identities and elements rather than in terms of the identities, intentions, or interiorities of the wills of individuals or groups. An openness to futurity is the challenge facing all of the arts, sciences, and humanities; the degree

of openness is an index of one’s political alignments and orientations, of the readi- ness to transform. Unless we put into question architectural and cultural identities—the identities of men and women, of different races and classes, and of different religious, sexual, and political affiliations, as well as the identities of cities, urban regions, buildings, and houses— this openness to the future, the promise of time unfolding through innovation rather than prediction, is muted rather than welcomed. The in-between has been a privileged concept for only a short time, for only in the last century or less has it been understood as a space or a positivity at all, as something more than a mere residue or inevitable consequence of other interactions. The first great thinker of the in- between is probably Henri Bergson, for whom the question of becoming, the arc of movement, is the most central frame. Instead of conceiving of relations between fixed identities, between entities or things that are only exter- nally bound, the in-between is the only space of movement, of development or becoming: the in-between defines the space of a certain virtuality, a potential that always threatens to disrupt the operations of the identities that constitute it. The model of

an in-betweenness, of an inde- terminacy or undecidability, pervades the writings of contemporary philosophers, including Deleuze, Derrida, Ser- res, and Irigaray, where it goes under a number of different names: difference, repetition, iteration, the interval, among others. The space in between things is the space in which things are undone, the space to the side and around, which is the space of subversion and fraying, the edges of any identity’s limits. In short, it is the space of the bounding and undoing of the identities which constitute it. For this reason, the in-between has become a cele- brated and prolific metaphor for many feminist and postmodern discourses, although it is rarely described as such. This in-between is the very site for the contestation of the many binaries and dualisms that dominate Western knowledge, for the very form of oppositional structure that has defined not only phallocentrism but also ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism, and the more general erasure of difference. The dualization of reality, the imposition of a representational structure that confirms the logic of self- identity—also known as the logic of the excluded middle— is one of the preeminent strategies in the propagation of power relations at the level of epistemo-

-logy. In a structure of rigid polar oppositions—oppositions that are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive (A and –A)—the slash, the imperceptible line dividing the A from the –A, one binary term from its other, is the place of the excluded middle, the only space of negotiation between them, the only room to move, the only position from which to in- sinuate a rift or hole into the self-defined term that estab- lishes binary privilege, and thus into the orbit of the binary structure itself. Irigaray, for example, has shown that the logic of dualisms involves not two terms but only the sem- blance of two terms. Phallocentrism is the use of a neutral or universal term to define both sexes: within this structure, there is not one term, man, and another independent term that is denigrated, woman. Rather, there is only one term, the other being defined as what it is not, its other or opposite. Irigaray’s claim is that woman is erased as such within this logic: there is no space for women because tak- ing their place is the specter or simulacrum of woman, man’s fanciful counterpart, that which he has expelled and othered from himself. There is no woman in this structure, only the formula of a woman that would comple- ment, supplement, and privilege masculinity. Similarly, in the structures of ethnocentrism and Eurocen-

centrism, there is no other who exists independent of the self-same or sov- ereign subject who always defines the other only in its own image. The in-between is what fosters and enables the other’s transition from being the other of the one to its own becoming, to reconstituting another relation, in different terms. This in-between is that which is thus shared by politics, by culture, and by architecture, insofar as they are all spaces, organizations, structures, that operate within the logic of identity yet also require the excess of subversion, of latency, or of becoming that generates and welcomes the new without which the future is not possible. The in-between, formed by juxtapositions and exper- iments, formed by realignments or new arrangements, threatens to open itself up as new, to facilitate transformations in the identities that constitute it. One could say that the in-between is the locus of futurity, movement, speed; it is thoroughly spatial and temporal, the very essence of space and time and their intrication. And thus inimical to the project of architecture as a whole. Gilles Deleuze is certainly the most self-proclaimed theorist of the inbetween, which he describes in terms of the middle: his dictum is to proceed

from the middle, to make connections not according to genealogy or teleol- ogy, but according to networks of movement and force. I want to turn now to some Deleuzian concepts in order to explore the contesting of the identities of culture and architecture that we are asked to position ourselves in between. Deleuze’s work allows us to question the very ideal of “constructing an identity”: he enables us to bypass the presumption that such an identity is necessary, or desir- able, for the ongoing well-being of subjects and cultures. Or rather, his work affirms that any identity is always riven with forces, with processes, connections, movements that exceed and transform identity and that connect individuals (human and nonhuman) to each other and to worlds, in ways unforeseen by consciousness and unconnected to identity. In the work of Deleuze, Irigaray, or Derrida, or for that matter in postmodern or posthuman discourses more generally, this question of the excess that simultaneously conditions and undermines identity is commonly identified as the question of difference. The concept of difference is another mode of formulating questions of becoming, futurity, betweenness, and thus a way of prob- lematizing conceptions of

being, identity, and self- presence that dominate both thought and building in the present. (It is significant that Deleuze, Derrida, and Iri- garay each specify that difference “has” an irreducible relation to the conceptualization of space and time: difference is not simply the collapsing [or circulation] of identity, it is also the rendering of space and time as fragmented, transformable, interpenetrated, beyond any fixed formulation, no longer guaranteed by the a priori or by the universalisms of science.) Nature: Architecture and Culture’s Becoming Implicit in the pervasiveness of structures of binarization is the refusal to acknowledge the invisibility or negligibil- ity of the subordinated term, its fundamental erasure as an autonomous or contained term. The binary structure not only defines the privileged term as the only term of the pair, but it infinitizes the negative term, rendering it definitionally amorphous, the receptacle of all that is excessive or expelled from the circuit of the privileged term. Yet while attempting to definitively and definitionally anchor terms, while struggling for a settled, stabilized power relation, while presenting themselves as immutable and given, dualisms are always

redefinition. They are considerably more flexible in their scope and history than their logic would indicate, for each term shifts and their values realign, while the binarized structure remains intact. In architecture, among the more relevant of these oppositional pairs are form and content, site and design, plan and construction, ornament and structure; in the field of cultural studies, the most relevant pairs include the oppositions between nature and culture, diachrony and synchrony, immanence and tran- scendence, same and other. Contesting schools or positions will uphold one or the other of these terms, such as nature or culture, or will propose a merger, which incor- porates elements of one of the terms according to the logic of the other—for example, a nature-oriented or -friendly culture, a culture in tune with the natural—but which nonetheless leaves the binary structure itself unquestioned and fully functional. It would be a mistake to assume that these oppositional categories are somehow fixed or im- mune to reordering and subtle shifts. For example, where nature has tended to remain the ignored and denigrated term in both cultural and architectural studies, it has also, not too long ago, functioned as the privileged term. It has, in effect, reversed positions with its other, culture, as the

privileged and defining term of the polarized pair: nature is now regarded as that residue either left over from or unassimilable to the cultural. It is now nature that is defined through its opposition to what is conceived of as culture, that is, the negation or residue left over from the cultural, its cultural waste. Much feminist and postmodern discourse has been based on this apparently definitive renunciation of the cat- egory of the natural. The elevation of culture and the social to the privileged object of intellectual analysis has occurred partly as the result of the denigration and expul- sion of the natural from the humanities and partly as a result of the apparently increasing control that the natural sciences seem to have over their “natural” objects of in- vestigation. Nature, in cultural and architectural discourses, is conceived either as a passive, inert, ahistorical burden—in architecture, the burden of site specificity or the natural limit of materials—or else as a romanticized refuge or haven from the cultural, a cultural invention for its own recuperatively included “outside.” Ironically, this is as true for philosophy and cultural studies as it is for architecture: they have all participated in the ever more firm opposition between the natural and the cultural, rewriting the

natural as the dissimulated product or effect of culture, the cultural production or inscription of nature. This strategy may well have been initiated as a mode of political reversal of the privilege granted to the natural in the discourses articulating relations of race, class, and sex, but it has now succeeded in banishing the natural to the cate- gory of irrelevance, to the evershrinking real that is produced, inscribed, and contained by the frame of the symbolic and the imaginary, that is, the frame of culture. Nature becomes the repository of what must be overcome, transcended, reinscribed in culture’s image, and thereby forbidden as ground or as matter, ejected as constraint, and refused as positivity or impetus. In a certain sense, it is nature that falls into the space “between” or before the jux- taposition and coincidence of the urban, the architectural, and the cultural. Nature is the other of these terms, the space in between them and the condition of their possibility and the impetus for their self-overcoming. I am not interested in affirming a fixed, static nature, either: the limits of any fixed, deterministic naturalism have been made apparent over the last twenty years or more. Instead, I am interested in rethinking the status of the natural, to affirm it and to grant it the openness to account

for the very inception of culture itself. Nature must be understood in the rich and productive openness attrib- uted to it by Darwin and evolutionary theory, by Nietzsche, Deleuze, or Simondon, as force, as production, as a revelry in the random and the contingent, as a continuous opening up to the unexpected, as relations of dissonance, resonance, and consonance as much as relations of substance or identity. Rather than seeing it as either fixed origin, given limit, or predetermined goal, nature, the natural, must be seen as the site and locus of impetus and force, the ground of a malleable materiality, whose plas- ticity and openness account for the rich variability of cultural life, and the various subversions of cultural life that continue to enrich it. The natural must be understood as fundamentally open to history, to transformation, or to becoming, as open as culture, as innovative, temporal, and historical as the purview of social, psychical, and cultural life. The natural is the domain of bodies, the domain of materiality, which is not to suggest that bodies and materiality are thereby somehow outside of culture. These bodies are natural, but to say this is in no way to limit them: nature is the resource for all bodies, whether micro- scopic, middle-sized, or macroscopic. Bodies are the debt that culture owes to

nature, the matter, attributes, ener- gies, the forces it must make and make over as its own. It is significant that among the more relevant discourses for understanding identity are those coming from apparently the most inert of natural studies, geology and crystallography, which have been so influential in the work of Deleuze and Guattari, especially in A Thousand Plateaus. Much recent work has regarded processes of individuation, not in terms of identities or substance, but in terms of a series of states of metastable equilibrium, and thus ir- reducibly in terms of processes of becoming. Simondon may have succeeded in going a step further than Bergson in thinking the implications of movement as the internal condition of individuation or being itself. To Simondon, individuation is a series of processes of radical excentering and self-exceeding (even at the nonorganic level of the crystal): The concept of being that I put forward, then, is the following: a being does not possess a unity in its identity, which is that of the stable state within which no transformation is possible; rather, a being has a transductive unity, that is, it can pass out of phase with itself, it

can—in any arena—break its own bounds in relation to its center. What one assumes to be a relation or a duality of principles is in fact the unfolding of the being, which is more than a unity and more than an identity; becoming is a dimension of the being, not something that happens to it following a succession of events that affect a being already and originally given and sub- stantial. Individuation must be grasped as the becoming of the being and not as a model of the being which would exhaust his signification. . . . Instead of presupposing the existence of sub- stances in order to account for individuation, I intend, on the contrary, to take the different regimes of individuation as providing the foundation for different domains such as matter, life, mind and society. To the extent that I affirm the centrality of nature to any understanding of culture and architecture, I also thus affirm the centrality of bodies—human and nonhuman, living and nonorganic—to formulating and refiguring an understanding of the in-between separating and linking architecture and culture. It is the interaction, arrange- ment, and regulation of such bodies that constitute the domains of both the architectural and the cultural. I have written elsewhere of the co-implication of bodies and cities, their relations of

of mutual production and definition;2 here I want to focus more closely on that which renders any notion of identity, of a concordance between the projects of architecture and cultural enlightenment, impossible. I want to view nature—that is to say, materiality in time, materiality whose only destination is futurity, openness, and endless ramification—as the undoing of the as- pirations of art and culture (which come together in unique form as architecture) to stability, identity, progress. Nature is the stuff of culture and thus of architecture. Which is not to say that culture and architecture are noth- ing but natural: they are the consequences of the endless ramifications, intertwinings, and openness of the natural to all modes of manipulation, nature’s open-ended completion by architecture, the landscape’s fundamental openness to architectural rewriting. Architecture constitutes a raw interface between/as the cultural and the natural: its task, among other things, is the negotiation between a nature that poses itself as resistance and a culture that represents itself as limit. In short, architecture must negotiate between, on the one hand, cognizance and re- shaping of the site, the organization and structuring of building materials, the development of a design that ac- knowledges or poses ques-

tions for these “resources” (nature here tends to function as “standing reserve,” ready at hand), and on the other hand the cultural and economic exigencies that commission and inhabit architectural constructions. Architecture is a kind of probe that seeks out and remakes geological and geographic formations while being directed by the requirements of an aesthetic, economic, corporate, and engineering amalgam. Whereas the cultural factors motivating architectural design and practice—the structure of the competitive or jury process, the economic limits imposed on all building construction, the aesthetic and intellectual training of architects— have long been subject to analysis, it is less usual to explore how architectural discourse and practice are invested in and committed to a particular conception of the natural. Architecture thus always borders on a nature that is often not acknowledged as such: indeed, the more we concentrate on architecture’s position within a cultural con- text, the more we obscure the very peculiar nature on which it also relies. This is a nature that is open equally to intensive or extensive multiplicities, to numerical division or cohesion, to movements that are as open to the unpredictable as they are driven by the forces of determinism, that

are as amenable to the grinding criteria of repeatabil- ity as they are experimental transformations and moments of unique and unrepeatable singularity. Architecture relies on a double nature—nature as standing reserve, as material to be exploited and rewritten, but also a nature that is always the supersession and transformation of limits and thus beyond the passivity of the reserve or the resource, nature as becoming or evolution. This concept of nature is not simply the limit- condition of architecture or of the arts of engineering, ex- ploration, and construction that come face-to-face with the resistance of the real, but also defines the limits and boundaries of culture, culture understood as contiguous with the social order, understood as the productive excess of the natural. This culture, the polar opposite of an inert nature, also relies on the excessive permutations and ramifications of a nature that is not made up of laws in any ju- dicial or regulative sense but rather of principles, vectors, movements, trajectories, modes of openness to an unpredictable future. It is not coincidental that the statistical mappings of cultural and economic relations closely follow the statistical structures of animal and organic evolution, and that computer simulations of social and natural populations have a

a remarkably similar degree of accuracy. The cultural—the sphere of personal and social identity and their transformation— can only function in its openness to history and contingency through the openness to becoming entailed by a cultural evolution that is part of and functions as an extension of biological evolution. Evo- lution is evolution, and its openness functions as such, whether it is cultural or natural. Power and the In-Between Power has been understood in a variety of ways: as a coer- cive force, as a rule by law or by a majority or the strongest, as a weight of prohibition or the force of proliferation. In his later, genealogical writings, Foucault demonstrated that if power is to function as a mode of coercion and constraint, it can do so only through the establishment of mi- crolinkages, capillary relations, relations that are primarily productive, enabling, positive. In a certain sense, Fou- cault’s work on power can be seen as the culmination or ex- plication of an account of power that links it to becoming and difference, to evolution and futurity (it is significant that he never refers to Darwin in his writings). Power is what proliferates, and its proliferation in a particular sce- nario is contingent on its

ability to overcome or absorb obstacles in its path, to use them as part of its own selfovercoming. Power, in short, is force directed to securing a future in the face of its inherent openness. The relation of power and futurity is paradoxical in that power recog- nizes the need for a most thorough anticipation of future trends or directions, but must nevertheless abandon itself to the force or pull of a future that it cannot secure and which may, at any moment, serve to reverse its thrust. Culture and architecture are part of the field on which power relations play themselves out. While no more the province of power than any other social activity, the sphere of cultural production, within which architecture must also be located, is not neutral with respect to various alignments of power: the more congealed, formu- laic, predictable, and recognizable the cultural and architectural forms, the more they aim at conserving a facet of the past and reducing the future to a form of its repetition. In spite of its place in the rhetoric of radical politics since Hegel, recognition is the force of conservation, the tying of the new and the never-conceived to that which is already cognized. History is itself the record of the workings of dominant social groups and categories, even though it also contains

the traces of alternative forces and movements, virtualities whose force is yet to come or perhaps will never be. The history of these repressed, submerged, or halfarticulated forces and events—those left behind in Hegelian sublation (in this sense, Hegel is the antithesis of Darwin!)—cannot be written with the same ease, readi- ness, and language available to canonical histories. The history of culture, and the history of architecture within it, is the playing out of these forces of actualization and realization at different rates of development, which themselves are functions of power investments. The overlapping fields of architecture and culture, which congeal identities—the identities of individuals as subjects, as sexes, races, classes, but also the identity of movements and groups (political, professional, stylis- tic)—are also sites for the unhinging of identities and the initiation of pathways of self-overcoming: in Deleuzian terms, “in all things, there are lines of articulation or seg- mentarity, strata and territories; but also lines of flight, movements of deterritorialization and destratification.” In short, to the same degree that a certain subjective, symbolic, and psychical cohesion—the cohesion required by and produced for stable identity, whether cultural

or architectural—is possible at all (and it is considerably less secure than naturalisms may want to affirm), these same stabilized and congealed forces can be reanimated and re- vivified in another direction. This is not the abolition of history or a refusal to recognize the past and the historical debt the present owes to it, but simply to refuse to grant even the past the status of fixity and givenness. The past is always contingent on what the future makes of it. The history of architecture, as much as the history of culture, is the unpredictable opening out of forms, materials, practices, and arrangements; it is the dissemination, and thus the deformation and deviation, of norms, ideals, and goals that were once taken as given or unquestionable. Power relations are subject to the laws of iteration or futurity: they function and remain cohesive only to the extent that they repeat themselves and congeal over time, retain- ing a fundamental identity even amidst ever-changing details. Power relations, like matter and like life, are dissi- pative structures that also exercise chaotic bursts, up- heavals, derangements, reorganization, quantum leaps. Insofar as they retain any identity, they also continually transform themselves, while nonetheless clinging to the goal of freezing, arresting, or containing the future

in its own image and according to its own interests. This force of futurity, which regulates the technological self-supersession that has marked historical moments in architectural and cultural life (as seen in the endless re- flections on how computing technologies affect interper sonal, social, and cultural relations, as well as architectural practices at the conception, designing, and construction phases), is that debt to or reliance on the natural that nei- ther contemporary cultural studies nor architectural discourses are capable of acknowledging. For it is this force of nature—not nature as ground, as matter, as standing reserve or resource—that is most significant in our under- standings of cultural, social, and psychical life, life which is lived and immersed architecturally, aesthetically, ethi- cally, and politically. That in nature which partakes of self-overcoming, of the random, the contingent, the unexpected, mutation—in short, the irreducible immersion of matter in space and time, in extension and becoming—has been elided for too long in our thinking about cultural and social space. Nature does not provide either a ground or a limit to human or cultural activity: nature is what inhabits cultural life to make it dynamic, to make it grow and be

capable of reorienting itself despite the desire of forms of power to fix or freeze this movement toward the future. The most dynamic elements of architecture, as well as those of the arts and social and political life, aspire to revel in the sheer thrill of the unknown: it is these dynamic—or perhaps we should say experimental (more in the artistic than scientific sense)—forces that enliven culture and all cultural production.

THE OPEN CITY Extracts of a conference of Richard Sennett – LSE Cities, 2006

The cities everyone wants to live in should be clean and safe, possess efficient public services, be supported by a dynamic economy, provide cultural stimulation, and also do their best to heal society’s divisions of race, class, and ethnicity. These are nott he cities we live in. Cities fail on all these counts due to government policies, irreparable social ills, and economic forces beyond local control. The city is not its own master. Still, something has gone wrong, radically wrong, in our conception of what a city itself should be. Perhaps those nice words -- clean, safe, efficient, dynamic – are not enough in themselves to confront critically our masters. Currently, we make cities into closed systems. To make them better, we should make them into open systems. We need to applying ideas about open systems currently animating the sciences to animate our understanding of the city. More, in an open city, whatever virtues of efficiency, safety, or sociability people achieve, they achieve by virtue of their own agency. But just because a city brings together people who differ by class, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, in an open system, the city is to a degree incoherent. Dissonance marks

the open way of life more than coherence, yet it is a dissonance for which people take ownership. Closed Let me begin with a paradox. The art of designing cities declined drastically in the middle of the 20th century. That’s a paradox because today’s planner has an arsenal of technological tools -- from lighting to bridging and tunneling to materials for buildings -- which urbanists even a hundred years ago could not begin to imagine: we have more resources to use than in the past, but resources we don’t use very creatively. This paradox can be traced to the over-determination both of the city’s visual forms and its social functions. The technologies which make possible experiment have been subordinated to a regime of power which wants order and control. A closed system has two further attributes: equilibrium and integration. These two attributes are usually seen as virtues, in government policies across the board, not just in urban planning. A programme should be balanced; everything should cohere! But urban planning shows why in fact equilibrium and integration, just like over-determination, can be destruction.

Open To the scientist, open systems are familiar companions. Chance events, mutating forms, elements which cannot be homogenized or are not interchangeable all these disparate phenomena of the mathematical and/or natural world can nonethelessform a pattern, and that assemblage is what we mean by an open system. In time,an open system can be non-linear, and within that frame range from path-dependency to the patterns of chance studied by Giorgy Markov. In space, an open system resembles a chemical colloid rather than a compound. The most familiar and most magnificent open system familiar to all of us is Charles Darwin’s version of evolution, which combines elements of chance mutation, path dependence, and the environment conceived as a colloid within which natural selection does its work. In social thought, the idea of an open system is often associated with Niklas Luhmann, and more particularly with his idea of “auto-poiesis.” This beautiful term indicates his belief that human beings create, through mutual exchange, the systems of value by which they live, and that

the more they exchange with one another, the more individuated they become. Yet the exchanges he has in mind are verbal. The world of built forms has no presence in these exchanges, and as it were, no voice of its own. The idea of an urban open system is that physical forms should be given a consequent voice; put less poetically, there is interaction between physical creation and social behavior. What we call “agency” in a city is a colloid of these two different activities. To put this more concretely, we need only invoke the name of the great urbanist Jane Jacobs. Against the over-determined vision of Le Corbusier, Jacobs argued that places should become both dense and diverse, either in the form of dense streets or packed squares; such physical conditions can prompt the unexpected encounter, the chance discovery, the innovation which is the genius loci of cities. Healthy, clean, and safe: you can experience these environmental virtues in a suburb, if you are rich enough, but only a certain kind of place, an open city, will stimulate you -- and that stimulation comes in particular form. Jacobs says, in a famous declaration, «if density and diversity give life, the life they breed is disorderly.» The open city feels like Naples,

the closed city feels like Frankfurt. An entire school of urbanism has arisen on this foundation, practical as well as analytic. Analytically, it avers that big capitalism and powerful developers tend to favor closure and homogeneity, determinate, predictable, and balanced in form; the role of the radical planner therefore is to champion dissonance. In practical planning, if a city is opened up, it will allow jerrybuilt adaptations or additions to existing buildings; it will encourage uses of public spaces which don’t fit neatly together, such as putting an AIDS hospice square in the middle of a shopping street. The stimulations of an open city may seem a larger reflection of William Empson’s bon mot that «the arts result from overcrowding.» Yet there’s a divide among open-city urbanists who share this general frame of mind. Jacobs privileges spontaneous combustion: crowd people together informally, and they will compete, collude, gossip, innovate. It’s sheer physical density in itself which is the stimulus. Sympathetic as I have always been to her, here we part company; to me, the spatial forms density takes are what matter in stimulating people of the physical matters more in shaping the open city.

Urban design, as design, does not figure much in her version of the open city; the art of design matters in mine. I’d like to conclude by presenting to you three ways in which I think an open city can be well designed. These designs involve creating ambiguous edges between parts of the city, contriving incomplete forms in buildings, and planning for unresolved narratives of development. Ambiguous edges Steven Gould draws our attention to an important distinction in natural ecologies between two kinds of edges: boundaries and borders. The boundary is an edge where things end; the border is an edge where difference groups interact. At borders, organisms become more inter-active, due to the meeting of different species or physical conditions; for instance, where the shoreline of a lake meets solid land is an active zone of exchange where organisms find and feed off other organisms. Not surprisingly, it is also at the borderline where the work of natural selection is the most intense. Whereas the boundary is a guarded territory, as established by prides of lions or packs of wolves. No transgression at the boundary:

Keep Out! Which means the edge itself is dead. We want as well to consider another natural edge condition, that at the cellular level. This is the distinction between a cell wall and a cell membrane. The cell wall retains as much as possible internally; it is analogous to a boundary. The cell membrane is more open, more like a border -- but membranes reveal something important about what «open» means. The membrane does not function like an open door; a cell membrane is both porous and resistant at the same time, holding in some valuable elements of the city, letting other valuable elements flow through the membrane. Think of the distinction between wall and membrane as a difference in degree: at the cellular level, conservation and resistance are part of the equation which produces openness. These natural differences between boundary/wall and border/membrane clarify closed and open built form. The boundary/ wall dominates the modern city. The urban habitat is cut up into segregated parts by streams of traffic, by functional isolation between zones for work, commerce, family, and the public realm. The most popular form of new residential development internationally, the gated community, takes to an

extreme the idea of the boundary wall. The result is that exchange between different racial, ethnic, or class communities diminishes. So we should want to build the border/membrane. Incomplete form Incomplete form is a creative credo. In the plastic arts it is conveyed in sculpture purposely left unfinished; in poetry it is conveyed in, to use Wallace Steven’s phrase, the «engineering of the fragment.» The architect Peter Eisenman has sought to evoke something of the same credo in the term «light architecture,» meaning an architecture planned so that it can be added to, or more importantly, revised internally in the course of time as the needs of habitation change. This form of building is the antidote to the over-determined city I spoke of earlier Incomplete form is not as easy to design as it might seem. Form and function need to be lightly connected if not actually divorced. The reason is that as the function of a building changes historically, the form can only adapt if it’s not over-determined, as I said before. If, like a Georgian row house, the form is simple -- in this case, basically a building in the form of a shoe-box -- then it can become flexible.

this case, basically a building in the form of a shoe-box -- then it can become flexible. But most modern buildings, especially tall ones, have complex infrastructures for lighting, heating plumbing, and electricity. It’s hard to make this infrastructure adapt to new purposes; for instance, recent efforts to convert office towers on Wall Street into apartment buildings have proved costly and unsatisfying. Incomplete form challenges the design ideal of a physical object as fit for purpose. Instead, the challenge of incomplete form is how to use new technologies to make building both simpler and more flexible in operation. Once we break the strangle-hold of function on form, once buildings are less tightly fit for purpose, they can become living, evolving structures. Understanding all this is important even if you aren’t an urban designer, because incomplete form is a basic principle in the good conduct of social life in general Unresolved narrative The narrative has clarity; in technical terms, it’s linear, which means the plot pushes forward as in a straight-line sequence. Linear narratives contrast to dialogical sequences: a clarifying meaning appears

in the linear narrative, at least in Victorian fictional ones, whereas in dialogics, things can get more and more cloudy. Most simply, the linear narrative aims forward at a conclusion, whereas the dialogic encounter emphasizes sheer process. Indeed, planning a closed city is indeed equivalent to plotting a bodice-ripper. The close-minded planner wants to envision from the very first all the results at the end and unfortunately, planning law in Britain demands such specification down to the most minor details of sidewalk height and width, or lighting intensity on a new street; a surprising discovery about sub-surface or local ambiance is treated as interfering with the plan, as getting in the way of realizing the objective. Lockstep, linear clarity from beginning to end is meant to rule realization. Real life rarely follows the script of a linear narrative, and in the actual process of development this compulsive clarity is rarely practical. None-the-less, in all planning work we are thinking in terms of narrative, in another sense of that word; we focus on the stages in which a particular project unfolds. This can a matter of the if-then sort of logical thinking, or it can be a more adventurous logic -- what next, what-if? But still we are trying to think out events in terms of consequences rather

than as a random series. Planning in the open city, like open systems in mathematics and the natural world, should embrace non-linear forms of sequence. Open-city planning attends to conflicts and possibilities in sequence; there’s problem-solving, but also problem-finding, discovery rather than merely clarity In this talk I’ve compressed a big contrast, that between the closed and open city. Closed means over-determined, balanced, integrated, linear. Open means incomplete, errant, conflictual, non-linear. The closed city is full of boundaries and walls; the open city possesses more borders and membranes. The closed city can be designed and operated top-down; it is a city which belongs to the masters. The open city is a bottom up place; it belongs to the people. These contrasts of course are not absolutes of black-and-white; real life is painted in greys. Yet to design the modern city well, I believe we have to challenge unthinking assumptions now made about urban life, assumptions which favor closure. I believe we have to embrace less re-assuring, more febrile ideas of living together, those stimulations of differences, both visual and social, which produce openness.

WALKING IN THE CITY Extract from the book : The Practice of Everyday Life Part III Spatial Practices - Chapter VII by Michel de Certeau

From the concept of the city to urban practices The World Trade Center is only the most monumental figure of Western urban development. The atopia-utopia of optical knowledge has long had the ambition of surmounting and articulating the contradictions arising from urban agglomeration. It is a question of managing a growth oh human agglomeration. “The city is a huge monastery”, said Erasmus. Perspective vision and prospective vision constitute the twofold projection of an opaque past and an uncertain future onto a surface that can be dealt with. They inaugurate (in the sixteenth century?) the transformation of the urban fact into the concept of a city. Long before the concept itself gives rise to a particular figure of history, it assumes that this fact can be dealt with as a unity determined by an urbanistic ratio. Linking the city to the concept never makes them identical, but It plays on their progressive symbiosis: to plan a city is both to think the very plurality of the real and to make that way of thinking the plural effective; it is know how to articulate it and be able to do it. An operational concept?

The “city” founded by utopian and urbanistic discourse’ is defined by the possibility of a threefold operation: 1.The production of its own space (un espace proper): rational organization must thus repress all the physical, mental and political pollutions that would compromise it; 2.The substitution of nowhen, or of a synchronic system, for the indeterminable and stubborn resistances offered by traditions; univocal scientific strategies, made possible by the flattening out of all the data in a plane projection, must replace the tactics of users who take advantage of “opportunities” and who, through these trapevents, these lapses in visibility, reproduce the opacities of history everywhere; 3.Finally, the creation of a universal and anonymous subject, which is the city itself: it gradually becomes possible to attribute to it, as to its political model. Hobbes’ State, all the functions and predicates that were previously scattered and assigned to many different real subjects--- groups, associations, or individuals. “The city”, like a proper name, thus provides a way of conceiving and constructing space on the basis of a finite number of stable, isolatable, and interconnected properties.

Administration is combined with a process of elimination in this place organized by “speculative” and classificatory operation. ‘On the one hand, there is a differentiation and redistribution of the parts and functions of the city, as a result of inversions, displacements, accumulations, etc.; on the other there is a rejection of everything that is not capable of being dealt with in this way and so constitutes the “waste products” of a functionalist administration (abnormality, deviance, illness, death, etc.). To be sure, progress allows an increasing number of the waste product to be reintroduced into administrative circuits and transforms even deficiencies (in health, security, etc.) into ways of making the networks of order denser. Bur in reality, it repeatedly produces effects contrary to those at which it aims: the profit system generates a loss which, in the multiples forms of wretchedness and poverty outside the system and of waste inside it, constantly turns production into “expenditure”. More over, the rationalization of the city leads to its mystification in strategic discourses, which are calculations based on the hypothesis or the necessity of its destruction in order to arrive at a final decision. ‘Finally, the functionalist organization, by privileging progress (i.e., time), causes the condition of its own

possibility--- technology. This is the way in which the Concept-city functions; a place of transformations and appropriations, the object of various kinds of interference but also a subject that is constantly enriched by new attributes, it is simultaneously the machinery and the hero of modernity. Today, whatever the avatars of this concept may have been, we have to acknowledge that if in discourse the city serves as a totalizing and almost mythical landmark for socioeconomic and political strategies, urban life increasingly permits the re-emergence of the element that the urbanistic project excluded. The language of power is in itself ‘urbanizing », but the city is left prey to contradictory movements that counter-balance and combine themselves outside the reach of panoptic power. The city becomes the dominant theme in political legends, but it is no longer a field of programmed and regulated operations. Beneath the discourses that ideologize the city, the ruses and combinations of powers that have no readable identity proliferate ; without points where one can take hold of them, without rational transparency, they are impossible to administer.

The return of practices The concept-city is decaying. Does that mean that the illness afflicting both the rationality that founded it and its professionals afflicts the urban populations as well? Perhaps cities are deteriorating along with the procedures that organized them. But we must be careful here. The ministers of knowledge have always assumed that the whole universe was threatened by the very changes that affected their ideologies and their positions. They transmute the misfortune of their theories into theories of misfortune. When they transform their bewilderment into « catastrophes, » when they seek to enclose the people in the « panic » of their discourses, are they once more necessarily right? Rather than remaining within the field of a discourse that upholds its privilege by inverting its content (speaking of catastrophe and no longer of progress), one can try another path: one can try another path: on can analyse the mircobe-like, singular and plural practices which an urban system was supposed to administer or suppress, but which have outlived its decay ; one can follow the swarming activity of these procedures that, far from being regulated or eliminated by panoptic admi-

nistration, have reinforced themselves in a proliferating illegitimacy, developed and insinuated themselves into the networks of surveillance, and combined in accord with unreadable but stable tactics to the point of constituting everyday regulations and surreptitious creativities that are merely concealed by the frantic mechanisms and discourses of the observational organization. This pathway could be inscribed as a consequence, but also as the reciprocal, of Foucault’s analysis of the structures of power. He moved it in the direction of mechanisms and technical procedures, ‘minor instrumentalities » capable, merely by their organization of « details », of transforming a human multiplicity into a « disciplinary » society and of managing, differentiating, classifying, and hierarchizing all deviances concerning apprenticeship, health, justice, the army, or work.10 « these often miniscule ruses of discipline », these « minor but flawless » mechanisms, draw their efficacy from a relationship between procedures and the space that they redistribute in order to make an « operator » out of it. But what spatial practices correspond, in the area where discipline is manipulated, to these apparatuses that produce a disciplinary space? In the present conjunc-

ture, which is marked by a contradiction between the collective mode of administration and an individual mode of reappropriation, this question is no less important, if one admits that spatial practices in fact secretly structure the determining conditions of social life. I would like to follow out a few of these multiform, resistance, tricky and stubbom procedures that elude discipline without being out-side the field in which it is exercised, and which should lead us to a theory of everyday practices, of lived space, of the disquieting familiarity of the city. The chorus of idle footsteps « the goddess can be recognized by her step » Virgil, Aeneid, I, 405 Their story begins on ground level, with footsteps. They are myriad, but do not compose a series. They cannot be counted because each unit has a qualitative character: a style of tactile apprehension and kinaesthetic appropriation. Their swarming mass is an innumerable collection of singularities. Their intertwined paths give their shape to spaces. They weave places together. In that respect, pedestrian mo-

vements form one of these « real systems whose existence in fact makes up the city ». They are not localized; it is rather they that specialize; they are no more inserted within a container than those Chinese characters speakers sketch out on their hands with their fingertips. It is true that the operations of walking on can be traced on city maps in such a way as to transcribe their paths (here well-trodden, there very faint) and their trajectories (going this way and not that). But these thick or thin curves only refer, like words, to the absence of what has passed by. Surveys of routes miss what was: the act itself of passing by. The operation of walking, wandering, or « window shopping », that is, the activity of passers-by, is transformed into points that draw a totalizing and reversible line on the map. They allow us to grasp only a relic set in the nowhen of a surface of projection. Itself visible, it has the effect of making invisible the operation that made it possible. These fixations constitute procedures for forgetting. The trace left behind is substituted for the practice. It exhibits the (voracious) property that the geographical system has of being able to transform action into legibility, but in doing so it causes a way of being in the world to be forgotten.

[2] View of the Croix-Rousse from the Rh么ne river banks

2. CROIX-ROUSSE DISTRICT

[4] Anthonie Waterloo, vue de la Saône à Lyon

[3] Vue du plateau de la Croix-Rousse

[5] Anthonie Waterloo, vue de la Saône à Lyon

THE HILL OF THE CROIX-ROUSSE extract from the book - Lyon colline de la croix-rousse by Corinne Poirieux Plateau, Pentes, Découvrir la ville autrement ( chapter in collaboration with André Pelletier )

Little story of the Croix-Rousse The Croix-Rousse is based on a plateau located at the height of 260m: the plateau is composed of a upper layer by sediments lasting from the last glaciation (150 000 years ago.) The “Gros caillou” (the great stone) lasts from that period. It has been found on the slope, while digging the “Ficelle” of the Croix-Paquet. Antiquity The first traces of occupation found on the slopes of the Croix-Rousse last about 10 BC. Remains of tracks has been found at many places of the district. The are the proof that the network of roads has existed. Yet, the main road has been the biggest road of the Rhin river of Agrippa, which from the Saône river pasted through the “rue Sergent Blandan”, and then, the “Montée des Carmélites” and the “Rue des Chartreux”. All over the antiquity period, the settlements has been developed mainly on the lower side of the slopes, while the “ Bourg Saint-Vincent” and the “Montée de la grande côte” have welcomed handcrafts activities (pottery kiln, glass worker shop). However, this inhabited district has been

overshadowed by the existence since 12 BC, of the “Sanctuary of the 3 Gauls”. On August 1st of that year, Drusus, stepson of Augustus has decided to gather notables of 3 provinces of the former “Gallia Comata” (conquered by Cesar) to celebrate altogether Rome (the Roman state) and the emperor (Augustus). This ceremony lasted then, until the 3rd century. The new sanctuary was located down the slopes of the Croix-Rousse, roughly bordered by the “Rue Neyret”, and the “Rue Imbert Colomes” on the North, the “Rue Pouteau” and the “Rue Saint Polycarpe” on the East, the “Rue Sainte Catherine” on the South and by the “Place Rey” and the “Montée des Carmélites” on the West. There were at least 3 monuments inside this area, the first, the oldest, an altar surrounded by two columns surmounted by “Victoires” (coins minted in Lyon have given us a representation of it). The second, the only one still visible today an amphitheatre built around 19AC. And at last, the third, a temple attested by the epigraphy. This sanctuary, called sanctuary of the confluences, has become a symbol of the persecution of Christians from Lyon in 177. There, in the amphitheatre, Blandina and 5 of her coreligionists have been killed. In the 16th century, it is also there that the famous Lyon’s Tablette has been found in the vineyard.

[6] Anonyme, vue de la Saône au niveau du grenier d’Abondance et du fort Saint-Jean, dessin (BML)

[7] Vue d’une partie de la ville de Lyon, 1720 (détail) le pont de pierre et le Croix-Rousse BML

[8] Vue sur la Saône (inconnu)

. It re-transcribed a speech of the emperor Claudius (born in Lyon), delivered in 48 in front of the Senate of Rome. The desertion of the sanctuary (which became then a quarry for Lyon’s inhabitants), in the second half of the 3rd century, has marked the beginning of a dark period of the Croix-Rousse. To the French Revolution During the major part of the middle age, the Croix-Rousse has been a rural area, with cereals on the Plateau and vineyards and orchards on the slopes. Yet, there was a administrative difference. The slopes were under authority of the consulate (and therefore of the town of Lyon), and the plateau was under the authority of the Seigneury of Cuire. Moreover since 1398, the territory of the Croix-Rousse and of some other neighbouring villages was property of the Franc-Lyonnais. The main privilege was to give inhabitants some advantages such as the exemption from tallage and from taxes regarding all the merchandises. That’s the way foodstuffs were cheaper at the gates of Lyon. This caused for centuries, proliferation of wine and other products shops along the “Grande rue”, main communication route with the North of the region, until the suppression of the

Franc-Lyonnais, in 1790. In 1512, Louis XII decided the building of a 2km fortification at the top of the slopes, from the fort Saint Jean on the Saone river, to the bastion Saint Laurent, and at the gate of Saint-Clair on the Rhone river. There was an opening on the plateau, in the following of the “Grande Côte”, through the door Saint Sebastian. This rampart, clearly drawn on the “plan scénographique de Lyon” (scenography map of Lyon around 1555), was a physical separation between the slopes (now part of Lyon) and the plateau. On the plateau, a red colored cross made with golden stones from the Monts d’Or, and surrounded by houses, at the tip of the Grande rue. The district had been called “The Croix-Rousse” because of the colour of this cross. Slowly, lands bordering the main road “Grande côte/Grande rue” have been divided in plots. Many religious communities have settled then on the slopes, with the oldest, in 1304, the monastery of the “Déserte”. Then followed the Carthusian in 1584, the Clarisses (Sainte Marie des chaines), the Benedictines, the Bernadine, the “Colinette”, (the Villemanzy), the Ursulines, the Carmelites nuns, the Oratorians, the Capucins, and also the sister of the

annunciation of Mary. The congregation of the Feuillants, and the reform Augustans. From 1584 to 1665, at least 13 religious communities have settled there. In the middle of the 18th century, there were located over almost all the sides of the slopes, on the North of the “Rue de la Martinière” and the “Rue du Romarin”. Until the French revolution they have stopped the urban expansion of the town towards the North. During the French revolution and for some years, the Croix-Rousse and Cuire have been gathered in a single town. During the siege of Lyon (August 8th-October 9th, 1793), inhabitants of the Croix-Rousse were pro-Lyon, unlike the ones of Cuire. That’s the way on September 27th, 1793, Cuire has been linked to Caluire and the Croix-Rousse has been an independent town for almost 60 years. 19th century until the annexation (1852) The main consequence of the French revolution has been the sale religious ownerships “Biens Nationaux”. The first, in Chartreux occurred in 1791, the last, in 1796. The churches Saint Bruno, Saint Polycarpe and Saint Denis, first confiscated

[9] «Evenements de Lyon», barriere de la Croix Rousse, 21 et 22 novembre 1832 (BML)

[10] La Grande Côte

[11] «Evenements de Lyon», 9 -14 avril 1834, Gravure de Devrour, Musée Gadagne

[12] Un atelier de Canut, le tissage de la soie au XIXème siècle. Gravue d’après Férat, Bibl Art Déco

were given back to worship. The “Clos de la Déserte” was given back to the town in 1808. With the “Jardin des plantes” created in 1796, the “Place Sathonay” has been drawn at the place of the cloister. On these liberated grounds, new streets were created, everyone praising the hill for his salubrity and pure air. Many building have been built, without always respecting the urbanism laws. The population on the plateau increased from 3,900 in 1811 to 29,000 in 1847 mainly on the East part. The West part remained mainly rural and was composed of : lands, meadows, woods, vineyards (very few), and most of all of markets gardens. This changings has been mainly due to the arrival of silk workers in the Croix-Rousse the “Canuts” (it seems that this name appeared in 1805). During the first year of the restauration period, the work of silk which used to be done in run-down workshops in the district of Saint-Georges, and of the Peninsula, move to the Croix Rousse, were free lands permitted the building of buildings which floors could welcome the 4m high the new Jacquards looms. Canut’s rebellions The silk industry faced hard time during

the French revolution period. In 1801, the silk production was 35% lower than the one in 1789, and the one of the soft furnishings was 80% lower. Thanks to Napoleon 1st, the official orders of the state, mainly for the furniture of imperial palaces (in 1811, the one for Versailles amounted 2 millions Francs) helped the rebirth of the silk industry Lyon. The evolution in favour of plane fabric considerably changed the geography of looms. At the same time a double changing occurred in the century, regarding supplying and outlets. Because of the development of the silk worms disease, the “prebine”, around 1850, in France and Italy, Lyon had to redirect definitively its purchases of silk towards China. Moreover the European market, much more difficult to reach because of trade barriers and the competition of new producers, has been joined by the Anglo-Saxon market. At least the development of mechanical looms produce new activities, in particular, the dyeing due to chemistry of the firm Gillet. Two big conflicts have marked the 19th century, the first in 1831, about tariffs. The price set during the empire period, was not applied and used to regularly de-

crease. In October 1831, the foremen gave the prefect a claim for a revision. On October 25th under the pressure of Canuts’ riot, representatives of the manufacturers and of the workers gave their agreement to a “minimum tariff of the prices of silk material cut”. The main part of the manufacturers then refused to applied the tariff agreed by their delegates and decided to lock out factories to face the threats of strikes actions. On November 21th, violence broke out, workers gained control of the Croix Rousse, driving back the assault of the troops of the General Roguet. At that moment, some republican agitators and some legitimists joined themselves to workers. A black flag was waved and someone shouted “give us some bread and some work!” which became later the famous slogan “to live working or to die fighting”. On November 22th, demonstrators gained control of the peninsula and public buildings. On November 29th, the prefect got all his powers back and on December 2nd the army entered in town. In 1832 there were hundreds of arrests, but the courts of Riom released the main leaders. The new prefect Gasparin, declared the tariff illegal. In compensation, he took several measures such as the market price list to rule the relationships

[14] La Ficelle

[13] Boulevard de la Croix-Rousse

[15] H么pital de la Croix-Rousse

between wholesalers and weavers, and a reform of industrial tribunal. Yet, these measures haven’t been enough to solve the social problem of the fabric. In July 1833, a first strike paralysed a thousand looms, and then a new threat of tariffs caused a general strike of the master weavers in February 1834. This latest failed and was repressed with the arrest of many leaders. On April 9th, during their trial, an uprising occurred in town and lasted for 6 days. Fights were located in the Croix Rousse and the Vieux Lyon, and in the South centre of the peninsula. Six thousand insurgents took part more or less closely to the fights, they were mainly journeymen. On April 15th the rebellion was put down. There has been over 300 dead and many wounded. There have been 500 arrests. In April 1835, 52 people from Lyon among other republicans arrested have been judged in Paris. The revolution of “Voraces” and the incorporation to Lyon On February 18th, 1848 with the declaration of the republic in Paris, the popular districts in Lyon have risen up, with in particular the most radical group, the Voraces. The group seized canons and took the control

on the town until June. On March 30th, an expedition has even been organized, to liberate Chambery from the Piedmontese oppression. On June 15th 1849, the army stopped the rebellion by demolishing the barricades and bombing the houses of the “Grande rue” and “Rue du Mail”. There were 56 dead on both sides. Leaders were sentenced to jail or to deportation. This uprising speeded up to the incorporation of the Croix-Rousse to Lyon. The central power didn’t want to see any more suburbs as centers of protest causing uprisings. Moreover the Plateau had tax advantages contrary to the town of Lyon. In consequence, on March 24th 1852, the free suburbs Vaise, la Guillotière and of course the Croix Rousse were incorporated to Lyon and became by that way the 4th of the five districts of the town. The 4th district The first consequence to the incorporation has been the demolition of the rampart, which was, from now on, located inside the town. It has been down at the initiative to the second empire, in 1865-1867’s. At the place of the rampart, the “Boulevard de la Croix-Rousse” was created. Roads had also to be built. The “Cours Général Giraud”

became the junction between the bottom of the slopes and the new “Boulevard de la Croix-Rousse”. Most of all, there has been the construction of the first funicular of the world in Lyon, the famous “ficelle”, unveil in 1862. It linked “Rue Terme” to the “Place de la Croix-Rousse”. The success of the funicular was so important (3 million passenger in 1880), that an other line had to be built from the “Place Croix paquet”. New equipment has been set : the hospital was unveiled in 1861, a new town hall was built between 1867 and 1869, water supply was provided by the “Compagnie Générale des eaux” and gas supply by “Compagnie du gaz de Perrache”. Churches were also built between 1828 and 1883, Saint Denis, Saint Eucher and Saint Bernard, le bon Pasteur, and later on Saint Augustin (1910) have been addd to the oldest churches, Saint Bruno and Saint Polycarpe. The construction of Saint Bernard has not been finished and today the church is no longer in activity. The defeat of 1870 and the fall of the second empire, has consequences on the town of Lyon. On December 20th, 1870 the background of social and political tension, the Canuts shot the commandant Arnaud, commandant of the “national guard”. On April 30th, 1871 the workers of the Croix-

[16] Atelier de tissage mécanique

[17] Un atelier de Canut

[18] Un métier Jacquart, Musée des Tissus

Rousse and Guillotière rose up in sympathy with the “Commune” of Paris. The repression quickly stopped the uprising. The new republic established compulsory state primary education. At the same time, the train teachers, the Rhone department decided to finance the building of two teachers training colleges, for men on the “Place Anselme”, (unveiled in 1883), for women, on the Boulevard de la Croix-Rousse ‘unveiled in 1888). Up to the present day From the end of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th, there have been big changes in the silk industry from Lyon. The Croix Rousse has mainly suffered from them. First, mechanical looms replace manual looms because they needed fewer workforces. Then, big factories were settled outside Lyon. In 2005 they were left in Lyon, only 8 silk factories, two of them using manual looms, necessary for the making of some fabrics. At last, the diversification of raw materials: as soon as in the first half of the 20th century, man-made threads were invented such as bonded fiber, nylon, then also some synthetic threads, polyester, acrylic, chlorofiber and at last glass fibers,

carbon and Kevlar. All the more, since silk industry has faced many economic crises. In 1877 half of the looms are out of work, in particular between 1929 and 1930. The loss of income regarding silk industry in Lyon was about 75%, and the number of employment decreased from 16,800 to 6,450! In 1954, there were only left few hundreds of looms on the plateau, for former workshops became housings for lower classes. In counterpart, other activities were developed such as the settlement of the Gillet firm in 1853 on the “Quais de Saone”, specialized in dyeing. Gillet has also built a big house, in the middle of as park (chazière), called the “Villa Gillet”. The hosue was sold to the town of Lyon in the 1970’s. At last we should not forget the building of a new weaving school, built by Tony Garnier, on the former lands of the Carthusian monks. The school open its doors in 1934, training every year more than 250 students. Today is called the Lycée technique Diderot. In the 20th century a lot of housing estates have been achieved, first private hosues on the “Rue Anselme” and at the east of the “Rue Chazière”, then big houses projects such as the “Habitation Bon Marché” (H.B.M/low cost housing), with as the “Cité jardin de Phillipe de Lassalle” in 1921, and the “Clos Jouve” in 1928. Schools complete

these equipments, as the primary school “Jean de la Fontaine”. The decrease of the economic activity in the Croix-Rousse goes with a recession of the demography: the population of the fourth district has decreased from 46,000 to 36,000 inhabitants from 1931 to 1954, then again until 1982, with the lowest point reached (30,677 inhabitants), before increasing and being stabilized around 35,000 inhabitants. Nevertheless, the Croix-Rousse has sustained its efforts regarding education. In 1960, the “Ecole des Beaux Arts” was implemented on the “Rue Neyret” above the amphitheatre (categorically identified thanks to the dedicative inscriptions lasting from 19 AC). Facilities were made regarding communications: creation of the “Boulevard des Canuts” in 1984, refitting of the “Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse” in 1992. The “Montée des Esses “ and the “Montée de la boucle” have been modernized. The funicular of the “Rue Terme”, closed in 1967, has been replaced by a slopping driving way. The one on the “Croix Paquet” has been linked to the “Terreaux”, and has become the new C line of the subway. . It has been linked to the A line in 1978. At last the construction of the tunnel under the Croix-Rousse in

[19] Postcard

in 1952 gained an extraordinary improvement to the echanges between the Eastern and Western districts of the town. A second tunnel dedicated to public transports and green transports has recently been opened, 2013. The last decades The patrimonial aspect of the Croix-Rousse has been acknowledged by authorities. Two decision have thus been taken, first, in 1994 a part of the slopes has been listed as “Zone de Protection du Patrimoine Architecture Urbain et Paysager” (ZPPAUP/ Urban and Landscaped Area of Protection of the Architectural Heritage) which has become nowadays “Aire de Mise en Valeur de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine” (AVAP/ Architectural and Heritage Devlopment Area). Moreover in 1998, the Croix-Rousse, with the 5th district and the peninsula has been listed as a UNESCO world heritage site. The Croix-Rousse has always kept a peculiar identity: you are from the Croix-Rousse before being from Lyon. The (supposed) spirit of Canuts is reminded in institutions such as the “République des Canuts” founded in 1986, the “Vogue des marrons”, the September’s big sell-off, the daily market

of the boulevard. It is possible to visit the “Traboules” which originality equals the one of the “Vieux Lyon” despite of a different function. It is also possible to admire the famous “Mur des Canuts”, made by CitéCréation, and to discover the functioning of looms from the “Maison des Canuts” or the “Soierie vivante”. To develop the inheritance of silk and to counterpart the touristic fashion of “Fourvière” and “Vieux Lyon”, since 2011 the town of Lyon has decided every year to dedicate the second half of November to the “Festival LabelSoie”. It gathers existing events such as the “Novembre des canuts” or the Silk market with new events, Symposiums, exhibitions, fashion shows, visits, using the collections of museums: Gadagne, Museum of Fabrics and Town Archives. Because we should not forget that in the mind of the inhabitants of Lyon, silk is still linked with the Croix-Rousse. That’s why the town has decided to develop one of the treasure of its heritage: the so beloved silk.¬

[20] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1350

[21] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1572

[22] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1635

[23] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1659

[24] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1711

[25] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1740

[26] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1766

[27] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1789

[28] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1805

[29] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1830

[30] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1856

[31] Map of the Croix-Rousse in 1992

[32] Urban and Landscape Area of Protection of Architectural Heritage Map, 1994

[33] Traboules et Cours des Pentes de la Croix-Rousse et du Vieux Lyon // Direction de l’Aménagement Urbain - Observatoire Urbain, 1998

872 - Site historique de Lyon : délimitation du bien et de sa zone tampon lors de son inscription sur la Liste en 1998

localisation du dépar du Rhône (n° INSEE

± 6 521 000

localisation de la com de Lyon (n° INSEE :

6 520 000

6 519 000

Inscription sur la (superficie en hec

patrimo

zone ta

6 518 000

Ó 0

500

1 000

mètres

[34] Lyon Unesco World Heritage Site Map, 1998 840 000

841 000

842 000

Ministère de la culture et de la communication

Ministère de l'écologie, de l'énergie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement

Direction générale des patrimoines

Direction générale de l'aménagement,

843 000

844 000

Carte réalisée dans le cadre de la mise à jour de l'atlas des biens français inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial Conception et réalisation : Nelly Martin - Institut Ausonius - CNRS / Université de Bordeaux 3 - mars 2011 Sources : proposition d'inscription de 1998 (archives Centre du Patrimoine Mondial / ICOMOS) / rapport périodique 2005 / inventaire rétrospectif Contributions : SDAP 69 2005-2011

[35] Tourist map of Lyon

[36] Arrondissements de Lyon - Lyon Districts

[37] Transports in Lyon : subway + tramway

[38] Picture of a street in the Croix-Rousse

3. UP & DOWN THE HILL OF THE CROIX-ROUSSE

AIM, CHARACTERISTICS, OBJECTIVES

[40] Carte postale ancienne de la place de la Croix-Rousse

AIm Urban spaces are the scenes of urbanlife experiences of the citizens; they are formed by the accumulation of diverse cultural layers. Besides the public spaces like avenues, streets, public squares there are different types like passages, dead-end streets and courts which can be called as

in-between spaces bearing more privacy. The aim is to understand the logic of generation of the urban structure by analysing the historical layers and the connections of this structure, to realize the spatial identities, and to maintain sustainability.

Characteristics

Objectives

The project aims to make research, gather data in order to compare the different formations under different geographies and to make design proposals for the semi-public spaces under the subtitles as

To develop the ability of multi-dimensional thinking and interdisciplinary comprehension on semi-public spaces such as ; passage, courtyards and dead-ends ;

- the physical spatial evolution in the historical process in different cultures and geographies, - their spatial features in urban morphology, - under what kind of physical and social influences they are developed - what kind of functions they have in urban life and -how can these spaces with strong local or traditional features transform according to the current expectations and needs.

- to provide awareness on the subjects as cultural heritage and sustainability, - to accentuate the holistic approach to spatial problems in the design processes, - to gain the ability of realizing the background factors of similar physical spaces in different cultures and enable them to create the ability of designing through this knowledge.

METHODOLOGY, ASSIGNMENT, QUESTIONS

METHODOLOGY The workshop has two steps ; first is the analysis phase and the second step is the design phase for thinking and finding solutions on the defined problems of the area. Analysis The analysis phase includes the observations, site studies and the research on the documents about the area. Conferences are given to the participants in order to provide knowledge about the area’s history and current situation. The transformations and the contribution of the semi-public spaces to the urban life is analysed by examining the cartographic and printed documents. Following this analysis phase, the problems/potentials, will be defined about the subject. The study area will be divided into five zones. Each group of students will work on different zones. The analyses will make it possible to develop ideas, programs and scenarios adapted to the urban pattern and the layout of the hill of the Croix-Rousse.

The analysis will be consisted of three major parts. - Morphological Analysis will define the characteristics of the habitat of the slopes of Croix-Rousse (forms, topography, gabarit, pattern, etc.) by putting in evidence the various systems and structures that constitute it. - Use and Meaning Analysis will attempt to identify the practices of the inhabitants and users in order to determine the traffic flows (pedestrian, car, bicycle…) and to locate the points of intensity (in terms of animation) as public places or places which presents an architectural heritage interest. - Landscape and Ambience Analysis will relate primarily to the urban landscapes (viewpoints, environmental noise/sounds, visual ambience, lighting ambience, etc….) Having three major parts in the analysis phase will oblige each group to divide into three subgroups. At this point it will be very important to keep the connection and the communication between these subgroups and the cross-connection between different groups who work on the same sub-theme of the analysis.

Design Proposals In this phase , participants are supposed to offer design solutions supporting the urban life, providing sustainability to the urban pattern and obtain the required transformations in the analysed public and semi-public spaces. ASSIGNMENT Location and the Limits of the Study Area The study area ‘the hill of the Croix-Rousse’ is in the quarter of Croix-Rousse which is divided into two halves, the pentes – the hill in the 1st district (arrondissement) and the plateau in the 4th district (arrondissement) . Croix -Rousse which is situated at the north part of the peninsula ‘Presqu’île’ between the two rivers ‘Saône and Rhône’ , is known as «the hill that works» as it was home to the silk workers (canuts) until the 19th century. This industry has shaped the unique architecture of the area.

[41] Carte postale du chemin de fer des Dombes

The patrimonial aspect of the CroixRousse has been acknowledged by authorities. Two decisions thus have been taken, first, in 1994, a part of the slopes has been listed as ‘Zone de Protection du Patrimoine Architectural Urban et Paysager’ (ZPPAUP / Urban and Landscape Area of Protection of the Architectural Heritage) which has become nowadays ‘ Aire de Mise en Valeur de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine’ (AMVAP / Architectural and Development Area). Moreover , in 1998, the Croix Rousse with the 5th arrondissement and the Peninsula, has been listed as an UNESCO World Heritage Site The limits of the area which is the subject to our study will be the limits of ZPPAUP plan which is determined by Boulevard de la Croix-Rousse in the north, Place des Terreaux in the south , Saône river on the west side and Rhône river on the east side.

[39] Study areas

QUESTIONS OF THE WORKSHOP The passages of the hill of the CroixRousse named as “traboules” are urban forms which characterize the habitat of this district. Their history is related mainly to the development of the weaving of silk at the 19th century. Today this activity has disappeared and the use and the status of traboules have changed. Therefore it is needed to evaluate the capacity of these passages in order to adapt them to new uses and enable them to take part in the necessary evolution of the district. Up to what point future urban developments can take into account the network of ‘traboules’ as significant urban structure? How to constitute the network of the ‘traboules’ by organizing continuities or discontinuities of the trails/parcours of which they are the support, while making them become visible?

It is needed to pay a special attention to the places which make it possible to connect the traboules between themselves but also with other urban systems by constituting them in nodes of the urban fabric. The development of the project will relate to this question of articulation of urban morphological structures which will be based mainly on the network of the traboules. The projects will make it possible to renew the ‘architectural heritage’ point of view related to the traboules by constituting them not only like an historical element of the memory of the district but like a profound structure of transformation.

[42] View of the rooftops of the Croix-Rousse

4. PROGRAM

DAY 1

DAY 2

DAY 3

March 31, Monday

April 1, Tuesday

April 2, Wednesday

ENSAL - amphi

Lycée Martinière 18 Place Gabriel Rambaud

09.30-11.00 Welcome speeches Nathalie Mezureux [Director ENSAL] Prof.Dr.Güzin Konuk [Dean MSFAU] Carlo Ravagnati Politecnico di Torino

09.30 -12.30 Lecture 3:The invisible city: passages as network François Tran (ENSAL) Lecture 4: Dwelling in/on transition Figen Kafescioglu (MSFAU) Lecture 5: Imagination and Knowledge in Architectural and Urban Design Carlo Ravagnati (PT)

09.30-12.00 Lecture 6: Examples of Transitional Spaces in Traditional Urban Fabric Gülsen Özaydin (MSFAU) Lecture 7: Thoughts and Images. Roundtrip Marcella Graffione (PT)

12.00-13.30

Lunch break

12.00-13.30

13.30-18.00 Team works and first impression discussions about the area and the theme of the workshop

13.30-17.30

11.00-12.30 Opening conferences Lecture 1: Prof.Dr.Güzin Konuk [ MSFAU] Lecture 2: The Brief History of Lyon Through the Urban History Philippe Dufieux [ ENSAL] 12.30-14.00

Lunch break

14.30-17.00

Visiting Croix-Rousse as workshop’s subject area Visiting ‘La Maison des Canuts’ and ‘traboules

17.00-18.00 Announcement of workshop theme and student groups 19.00-20.30 Welcome Ceremony Résidence Consulaire de Turquie

Lunch break

Team works on the Project [Analyse process by students]

DAY 4

DAY 5

DAY 6

April 3, Thursday

April 4, Friday

April 5, Saturday

Lycée Martinière 18 Place Gabriel Rambaud

ENSAL salle 12

09.30-12.00

09.30-12.30

Lecture 8: #neighbour publicity... Inci Olgun (MSFAU) Sinem Özgür (MSFAU) Lecture 9: ‘Parcours Urbain’ in Dense City Fabric Özlem Lamontre-Berk (ENSAL)

12.00-14.00 14.00-17.30

Lunch break

Team works on the Project [Analyse process by students]

Preparing presentation analyses

12.30-14.00

Lunch break

14.00-18.00 Presentation of analyses and concept statement

19.30-05.00

LaCharette Party (ENSAL)

11.00-16.30

Organized visits

Visiting the historical sites of the city The Gadagne Museum Boat Trip

DAY 7

DAY 8

DAY 9

April 6, Sunday

April 7, Tuesday

April 8, Tuesday

No program â&#x20AC;&#x201C; individual time in Lyon

ENSAL Studio AFT

09.30-12.00

Team works on the Project

09.30-12.00

Team works on the Project

12.00-13.00

Lunch break

12.00-13.00

Lunch break

13.00-17.30

Team works on the Project

13.00-17.30

Team works on the Project

DAY 10

DAY 11

DAY 12

April 9, Wednesday

April 10, Thursday

April 11, Friday

ENSAL Studio AFT

ENSAL Studio AFT & Salle 10

09.30-12.00

Team works on the Project

09.30-12.00

Team works on the Project

09.30-12.30

Preparation of the final presentations

12.00-13.00

Lunch break

12.00-13.00

Lunch break

12.30-13.30

Lunch break

13.00-17.30

Team works on the Project

13.00-17.30

Team works on the Project

13.30-18.00

Final jury for the projects

18.00-20.00

Closing ceremony Prize - giving best project

[43] Picture of La mont茅e de la grande c么te

5. STUDY GROUPS

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GÜZIN KONUK MARCELLA GRAFFIONE

FRANCOIS TRAN GÜLSEN ÖZAYDIN

Anaëlle KISCHENAMA Baptiste BERNARD Claire JOACHIM Cüneyt SENTÜRK Estelle MARTIN-LYET Felipe QUINTERO Giorga FAVATA Gözde MERMER Jason HULEUX Mickaël CUILLERAT Sena BARIS

Aurélia DELSIGNORE Banu AKTAS Benjamin POIGNON Eda YALCINKAYA Margaux DUTILLY Michelle VECCHIA Paula MENDEZ Sinem BOYACI Ugo NATALONI Vanessa BRUGGER

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

GROUP 5

BRIGITTE SAGNIER FIGEN KAFESCIOGLU

CARLO RAVAGNATI ÖZLEM LAMONTRE-BERK

CHRISTIAN MARCOT DERYA ALTINER

Adrien MAGIS Alvara URRUTIA Amandine RIOU Eda AYTEKIN Gülzade SENTÜRK Isabelle GOURLAT Mariane PLANCHAIS Michela DONATO Onur DEGIRMENCI Rémi GODET Vittoria TRUSSONI

Antoine AVALLE Benoit BRET Gühher KOC Havva NUR BASAGAC Ilke SAL Lara GREGORIE Marie LUDMANN Marine BOUVERESSE Sarah COUDRY Vianney CHARMETTE Viviana PONTE

Adam LOURIKI Etienne FRESSONNET Fernand GUISELIN Ibrahim ÖZVARIS Léa MORGAND Nedjma MAURY Seda TANKA Sezin TÜTÜNCÜOGLU Sophie RUYER Violetta APASSOVA

[44] View of the Croix-Rousse from the top of the hill of FourviĂ¨re - Saone river banks

6. REFERENCES

ICONOGRAPHIE

CHAPTER PICTURES [1] View from the rooftops of the CroixRousse http://chaillotphotos.wix.com/galerie [2] View of the Croix-Rousse from the Rhône river banks http://leblogdemeyilo.blogspot.fr [37] Picture of a street in the Croix-Rousse http://ds-lands.com/lyon.html [42]View of the rooftops of the CroixRousse http://www.nileguide.com/destination/ blog/lyon [41] Picture of La montée de la grande côte http://voyageur-attitude.fr/faire-a-lyon/ [44] View of the Croix-Rousse from the top of the hill of Fourvière - Saone river banks Nicolas Jacquet, Guide.promeneur [45] View of the hill of Fourvière from the hill of the Croix-Rousse http://bonjour-lyon.fr/ 2. CROIX-ROUSSE DISTRICT

OLD PICTURES

AUDIN A., FEDOU R., GARDEN M., GASCON R., LAFERRERE M., LATREILLE A., 1975,

Histoire de Lyon et du lyonnais, Collection Univers de la France et des pays francophones, 511p.

REVERDY G., 1994, Histoire des routes lyonnaises, Collection Sciences & techniques, 128p. PELLETIER A., ROSSIAUD J., Histoire de Lyon Antiquité et Moyen-Age, des origines à nos jours Tome I Antiquité et Moyen-Age, 478p. BAYARD F., CAYEZ P., Histoire de Lyon Du XVIe siècle à nos jours, des origines à nos jours Tome II Du XVIe siècle à nos jours, 479p.

OLD MAPS

Plan topographique des pentes de la Croix-Rousse en 1350 Extrait du plan topographique historique de la ville de Lyon en 1350, établi d’après les terriers de cette époque avec le recensement cadastral de 1493 dans la partie où les documents plus anciens font défaut, dressé par Benoît Vermorel, vue d’ensemble. Manuscrit sur calque, colorié. Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1572 Extrait du plan de Braun et Hogenberg

Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1635 Extrait du plan de Simon Maupin de 1635, première version du célèbre plan auquel il a donné son nom. Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1659 Extrait du plan intitulé « Description av naturel de la ville de Lyon et paisages alentour d’icelle », dressé par Simon Maupin, 1659. Gravé sur cuivre. Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1711 Extrait du plan de la ville de Lyon en 1711, anonyme et réalisé sous le règne de Louis le Grand. Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1766 Extrait du projet d’un plan général de la ville de Lyon de 1766, dit plan « Morand ». Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1789 Extrait du « nouveau plan géométral de la ville de Lyon en 1789 » Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1805 Extrait du plan de la ville de Lyon et faubourgs par Rudemare, daté de 1805.

Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1830 Extrait du « plan de Lyon et de ses environs » fait en 1830. Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1992 Extrait du « plan de la direction des systèmes d’informations et de télécommunication de la ville de Lyon » en 1992. Plan des traboules du 1er Direction aménagement urbain 1998 En violet les traboules fermées. En bleu les traboules ouvertes. Entourées en rouges les traboules « conventionnées »

MAPS

[34] Lyon Unesco World Heritage Site Map, 1998 [35] Tourist map of Lyon [36] Arrondissements de Lyon - Lyon Districts [37] Transports in Lyon : subway + tramway

Plan des pentes de la Croix-Rousse 1856 Extrait du « plan de Lyon et de ses nouveaux quartiers », par J-B Gadola, en 1856.

3. UP&DOWN THE HILL [38] Study areas

[45] View of the hill of FourviĂ¨re from the hill of the Croix-Rousse

7. OUTCOMES (OPERATIONS, SUGGESTIONS, ANALYSIS...)