MOVEMENT IN ARCHITECTURAL URBANISM
Content
MOVEMENT IN ARCHITECTURAL URBANISM
TACKLING COMPLEXITIES OF THE CONTEMPORARY URBAN CONDITION
by Konstantin Seufert
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Housing & Urbanism) in the Architectural Association School of Architecture. September 2013
INTRODUCTION
02
1. REDIFINING THE CITY FROM WITHIN
03
THE RENEWED FOCUS ON THE URBAN
04
MOVEMENT THROUGH STRATEGIC LAYOUT
05
GUIDING SPATIAL ORGANISATION
09
2. STRATEGIES FOR THE COLLECTIVE
12
CRYSTALLIZED ACTIVITY PATTERNS
13
THE PART AND THE WHOLE
14
MOVEMENT BETWEEN GENERATIVE ELEMENTS
17
3. THE EVOLUTION OF THE MIX
20
INHABITING THE CITY OF MANY CENTRES
21
THE IDEAL METROPOLIS REACHES DEADLOCK
23
MOVEMENT AND THE URBAN ECONOMY
25
MOVEMENT DRIVEN URBANISM
29
1
INTRODUCTION
These days, the reputation of the professions dealing with the development of cities are stagnating on being acceptable as they are either blamed for negligence in matters of ‗urban decay‘, ‗sprawl‘ and ‗fragmentation‘ or for being held co-responsible for 20th century legacies such as pessimistic monofunctional mass-housing districts or generallyincoherent ‗spatial logics‘, which are still prevailing in the contemporary city. Architects equally have resigned from the ttask ask to fully understand or direct the city‘s multiple layers of complex dynamics. While accepting that traditional tools
like the large plan have become impracticable, the designing spatial disciplines are overwhelmed by a multitude of stakeholders and constantly changing conditions. Being faced with obvious misplanning in the city, they regularly plead for merciless capitalisation processes against which they seem to be impotent.In doing so,they undermine parts of their obligation to engage in debates on the city or to oppose in any case of impending failure. Regardless of any crisis, cities are expanding at impressive scaleand fears are high that they will become mere manifestationsof many autonomous and competing systems acting according to their own logic. In order to analyse and evaluate how contemporary urban planning projects are forming the urban condition, the area which one‘s attention would be drawn to,
eventually, must be the inner city. There, the spatial disciplines are not deedless. As these numerous urban renewal projects show, architect-planners and their theories do actually play a role. They are developing strategies to cope with the 21th urban condition and they are trying to find a common ground to steer a city‘s dynamic growth.The study of movement, mobility and the activity patterns of our society is such an attempt att empt to find an adequate understanding of the contemporary urban condition. Uniting these findings with state-of-the-art design strategies in architectural urbanism could make urban planning and design a more integrated process.
2
01
REDIFINING THE CITY FROM WITHIN
3
THE RENEWED FOCUS ON THE URBAN
The increasing number of urban renewal projects in cities worldwide can be understood as an indication that these relevant cities are increasingly in possession of less fortunate central locations which need redefinition.Areas which one would - out of experience - tendentially rather expect to find in suburban regions or at the city fringe. Naturally, the otherwise well located zones in the city possess great connectivity. There is usually a fine mesh of streets, pedestrian paths and efficient public transport systems linking to the rest of the city and to the larger metropolitan area. The proximity to high-speed train connections and the possible availability of an international airport are further connecting the city to continental and to more global destinations. These typically metropolitan characteristics are strong location factors and put pressure on development. The suburbs, on the other hand, which were favoured by the city dweller for a long time, have lost their attractivity and it seems that today we are faced f aced with a variety of processes which render downtown in a new blossoming appeal. It would be quite an oversimplification to try to explain this shift with a newly risen interest towards historic preserved city cores, where one then expects to find picturesque morphologies at pedestrian scale. Nor is there a newly established collective need for the proliferation of identity distinguishable in our society. An eventual longing for something, we would hope to find exclusiv exclusively ely through some kind of backward orientation towards a sublime ‗atmosphere‘ or ‗sense of space‘ which presumably can only be provided by ancient fabric having had once an actual meaning.
There must be more solid reasons for the awareness of downtown in the public consciousness, as well as, among the professions dealing with the built environment. Above all, it is highly likely that this phenomenon can be traced back to rather rational reasons. Major shifts in the global and subsequently in the urban economy are fundamentally changing the socio-economic activity patterns and therefore the urban condition in general. Consequently, in recent decades, parts of the centre accumulated a demand for adaption to the changing needs of a modern1 post-industrial society as they have become deprived of their original purpose over time. The role they used to play within the larger urban system became less relevant.For that reason, urban renewal 1
The term ‗modern‗ is used here as a substitute for ‗contemporary‘ relating to the present time , as opposed to ‗Modernism‘ or ‗Modernist era‘ which describes mainly the pre -war period starting around the turn of the century. 4
projects there can also be studied as direct physical responses to a set of worldwide on-going socio-economic socio-economic processes which affect our daily life a gr great eat deal. They are cir cumscribed cumscribed by notions such as ‗globalisation‘, meaning processes which increase ‗globality‘ 2 or ‗the information age‘, a notion Manuel
Castell uses to define our new era, which favours information and knowledge 3. Both terms are quite often in use these days summarising the increased flow of information, funds, goods, people, etc. As cities are according to scholars like Sassen and Castells more than ever places of economical concentration4, the rise of the knowledge economy renders the urban as an incubatory environment. Now, city authorities have understood their duty. They are engaging in exploiting their relevant sites with intelligent urban designs and are trying to apply economically sustainable marketing strategies5. Although these interventions in the city are naturally limited in size, cities have high hopes that the subsequent catalytic influence of these projects will go beyond the borders of the adjacent fabric. In fact, the whole urban system or even the greater regions shall benefit from synergetic effects.
MOVEMENT THROUGH STRATEGIC LAYOUT
However, what is crucial for us and our study of urban form is the sum of intriguing consequences inherent in these developments. The tangible realities with which urban planners are confronted are, amongst others, reflected in our will to live where one is working, to move downtown and, in a more general sense, to be as highly connected as possible. It is the urban planners‘ task to create the urban environment where multiple functions are juxtaposed and synergetic effects are supported. Hamburg‘s HafenCity is claiming to be an ambitious project where many ideas
are supposed to merge and find their way to materialisation. But still, HafenCity redevelopment is a typical example of a new generation of worldwide on-going projects to restructure our inner cities. Hamburg, like many ttraditional raditional port cities, was struggling with the impacts of technological progress in the fields of goods traffic and shipping manufacturi manufacturing. ng. These developme developments nts changed the way ports 2
(Steger, 2009, p. 8) 1997) (Sassen, 2002; Sassen, 2000) 5 Cities are greatly encouraged in their efforts through mean meanss of funding by a range of municipal agencies and superior authorities.(Kunzmann, 2009) 3 (Castells, 4
5
had to be organised and where they should later be ideally located 6. As a consequence the functional und spatial relationship between the port and the city decreased and the proximity to the centre was no longer crucial. In their need to expand, ports had to move to more remote areas outside the city, leaving abandoned spaces behind. The attempt to redefine Hamburg‘s
waterfront stands for many numerous former industrial zones in cities worldwide where areas have become obsolete and thus urge for a more substantial role in the future.
Fig. 1 Hamburg's old and new street pattern: the old city core (black) and its extension into HafenCity (red).
Fig. 2 Grain in HafenCity. Indicated in red are the main axes leading into the centre.
As the brownfield project is an extension of the centre towards the waterfront it also has to tackle a problem which the old core developed over the decades. Although a typical downtown atmosphere of vibrant urbanity exists at daytime, residential uses depleted over time for the sake of businesses and tourist daytime amenities. This means to turn the t he fabric into a silent almost abandoned seeming spot after working hours. As an example of a contemporary development project where a new piece of the city is being designed from scratch with a limited amount of starting points in the vicinity, a closer look at HafenCity‘s structure will shed light on the matter. We will witness how active
planning is shaping the development process and above all, we explore the design strategies that are shaping the urban morphology which targets to serve the needs and activity patterns of metropolitan life today. Obviously, one notices upon first look that a monotonous land use pattern which is continuously repeated has not been applied. Unlike Amsterdam‘s IJ -Plein masterplan, which is coined solely by residential use, or unlike pure business high-rise districts such as the Docklands in London, HafenCity is providing a mix of different building types, eventually not mono-functional. Bringing 6
(Hoyle, 1989). 6
residential uses back to the very centre while integrating more typical downtown uses is key to the strategy. In detail this means to support premises for living and working with a variety of civic institutions such as cultural, social and educational facilities with their associated networks. This diversity is expressed in morphological terms as well. The distributed buildings range from rather simple single detached multi residential units to smaller opened-up block structures which are formally more complex mix use entities but internally constituted of equal rather Fig. 3 Abstract Drawing showing accessible open space in grey. No distinction is made between pedestrian ways, public or private-but-publiclyaccessible open space.
conventional and expectable urban typology. Yet HafenCity manages to maintain an urban grain which is slightly differentiated but still looks coherent. It is ranging from rather fine to mid-size scales. This design approach is proliferating inner patterns of partial irregularity but the fabric keeps its legibility throughout the area. While this is usually ensuring the substantial capacity of movement and while the built-up area has a tendency to possess more or less distinct
Fig. 4 Main uses within buildings in HafenC HafenCity ity West: Housing (orange), office spaces (blue) and buildings for education, culture and civic institutions (red). Different ground floor uses for shops and services are not marked.
grades of porosity, one has to admit that in the specific case of HafenCity, some topographic complications due to flood f lood protection measures and a limited amount of one way streets are locally restraining from unimpeded flow. Nevertheless, its undeniable space legibility is achieved, furthermore, through the net of street systems which are hierarchically organised, ranging from main axes leading out and into the city to a system of side roads and one way streets,
Fig. 5
Ground floor uses in HafenCity
which
are
further
helping
to
differentiate the fabric. We see different urban areas
with
neighbourhood
characteristics
which are tied together by a strong concept of interconnectivity linking the sets of different areas with specific conditions and different grades of privacy. These 7
distinguished functional assets of HafenCity are enhanced by extensive public ground floor uses oriented towards squares and streets, which provide a multitude of shops and services to serve the new community. Between this street-based morphology and spaces for businesses and civic institutions the more private living areas are thoughtfully interspersed. In applying an ‗allocation
Fig. 6 Orientation and Layout in HafenCity are support supporting ing maximum movement through the fabric.
Fig. 7 Mixed agglomeration around Sandtorpark. Live, work, educate and play in the city
formula‘ for the creation of ‗urban life‘, they understand housing as a key quality
for the new area and embrace diversity instead of mono-functional mono-functionality. ity. This is not solely a market driven calculating manoeuvre in accordance with statutory provisions. The ambitious program is aiming at both serving the needs of a productive society and setting the preconditions for their economic relations in the urban field. 8
Again, together with the variation of the building types, their layout leaving a diversity of open spaces in between and the intended programmatic diversity prevalent throughout the quarter, Hamburg‘s vision for the 21.-century-city is beginning to revealits potential.
GUIDING SPATIAL ORGANISATION
Shifting from a rather selective and specific description to a broader study of the HafenCity plan, crucial characteristics which are significant for the performance of this and similar strategies seem worth to recite: Together they build an intriguing interplay of the combinatory spatial organisation, the synergetic juxtaposition of functions functions and above all the inher inherent ent affirmative strategy in terms of planning and guidance of the land development.
Fig 8 Different sets of urban areas with different grades of privacy
Like architect-planners and theorists of the spatial practises, we could witness that the relation between urban space and our society has significantly changed for a variety of social and economic reasons. This is realised, amongst others, mostly through looking at our changed prevalent concept of the ‗public‘ realm
which has become less definable, less tangible and much more pervasive 7. In our example, this is physically represented in the layout and the performative quality of the buildings especially regarding their ground floor uses and their 7
(Koolhaas , 1996, p. 45) 9
orientation towards open spaces. Furthermore, despite their typical internal structure, some buildings give up the traditional relation between front and backside. They reveal their capacity to possess more than actually one orientation. Their ground floor uses and their frontages may typically be street centred but on a second look they appear to have a second or third frontage alike, addressing the side or the back where it is difficult to distinguish a priority. They perform towards each side differently and in particular ways to support different grades of privacy and they suggest multiple ways to be read, accessed and passed through. The buildings act consequently in synergy with the adjacent fabric where different mobility systems such as roads, pedestrian paths and bridges enable different ways to explore and make use of the fabric. An organisation like this is paying attention to the increased different ways people live, work and play in the city; Not only by physically moving through narrower streets, shopping alleys, towards vibrant courtyards or other open spaces but also to be for f or oneself 8, to exchange information, to dwell and to work in close vicinity. In order to initiate the desired concert of socio-economic processes to form what we call vibrancy or urbanity in the city, stakeholders must be motivated to engage in the process and to actually invest in the new district. For that reason, the question of governance is very crucial and has to be answered adequately. Planning consortiums are formed and they are increasingly beginning to set aside their scepticism concerning large-scale planning, which has fallen into disrepute for a long time and they have affirmatively decided to engage in active guidance and governance of the process. This is happening notwithstanding being under a huge pressure to succeed as there are many participants involved. On the one hand, it is applied not exclusively but with a major focus on the attempt to control the city‘s growth. Well-resourced and aggressive capitalist forces, which are merely driven by their eagerness to gain fast profits, must be restrained as they would rather not contribute to the greater agenda which is aiming at sustainability. But on the other hand, there are quite pragmatic reasons such as reducing the economic risk for the involved stakeholders and maintaining the capacity to stay flexible and responsiv responsive. e. The HafenCity agenda brought forth a planning strategy which is trying to set up a resilient development framework, accepting that a traditional masterplan would be too static. As they understand the city as a set of heterogeneous 8
(Maki, 2008, p.73) 10
processes and as they have the will to stay flexible, the gradual implementation of autonomous entities on a larger time scale plays a key role. In the case of Hamburg this means a collaborative action by a strong state as investor for infrastructure and open spaces, private-public partnerships and a professional planning management9. The area is built up in small steps starting with small housing units and further on more complex mix-use buildings and even major business headquarters in some particular locations. Development is pursued gradually from west to east and concentrically from the edge of the centre to the waterfront. This is what Fumihiko Maki already in the 60s in his innovative work on collective form called ―incremental planning‖ 10 and which is making it possible to react to changing conditions. When authorities claim that ―a powerful regulatory regime‖ and the partitioned activation of the market by a public developer are contributing to the ―character of a public good‖ 11, they are also
expressing an idea which was for decades going around among architects and planners: The responsiveness and recognition of the citizen‘s role and his
involvement into the development process. That means a rather non-elitist approach is allowing for feedback throughout the process.A feedback which is replacing deliberate scientific reasoning but enabling adaption before final materialisation. It is a de facto attention towards how the urban condition may change over time and how it may be influenced by the city dweller‘s chan ging
activity patterns within the fabric and what urban space means to him.
9
(HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2012) (Maki, 2008, p. 70) 11 (Bruns-Berentelg, 2012) 10
11
02
STRATEGIES FOR THE COLLECTIVE
12
CRYSTALLIZED ACTIVITY PATTERNS
Fumihiko Maki claimed that ―the Human quality which determines form has to
do with way of life, movement, and the relation between individuals in society. If the function of urban design is the pattern of human activities expressed in city life, then the functional patterns are crystallized activity patterns.‖ 12 When we
recognise how much attention is paid to the very diverse shape of the built environment in HafenCity, to which a variety of different architects could contribute, one may start to believe that this approach may best represent our society‘s contemporary diversity and their social and economic r elations. elations. It
seems that a particular focus has been set on movement, social relations between people and their different manifestations and on the new role housing plays as it is an integrated component of the city‘s concept for creating a fertile
environment for the emergence of both livable urban areas and the contemporary urban economy. Furthermore, it could mean that outdated legacies of postulations such as architecture and urbanism which are supposed to shape social relations have been inverted. Maki as an urban designer was from early on engaged in finding adequate architectural solutions in order to deal with the upheaval processes within society. He ascertains that technological progress and society‘s adaption is making it clear that ―cities must change as social and economic uses dictate.‖ 13
He is writing: ―The reason, in fact, for searching for new formal concepts in contemporary
cities lies in the magnitude of relatively recent changes in urban problems. Our urban society is characterized by (1) coexistence and conflict of amazingly heterogeneous institutions and individuals; (2) unprecedented rapid and extensive transformations in the physical structure of society; (3) rapid communications methods; (4) technological progress and its impact upon regional culture.‖
For him it is, furthermore, quite clear that the city‘s problems cannot be solved with pure formal concepts like the Renaissance city plan nor ―can we easily
perceive a hierarchical order [in society], as did the original CIAM theorists in the quite recent past‖ who were convinced of segregatin segregating g different components
12 13
(Maki, 2008, p. 55) (Maki, 2008, p. 45) 13
of society into different functional zones. Instead he pleads that ―we must now see our urban society as a dynamic field of interrelated forces.‖ 14
THE PART AND THE WHOLE
Being also at that time a member of the well-known Japanese Metab Metabolist olist group, Maki was a typical representative of the generation of architects and theorists who witnessed the decline and dissolution of the last era of the ‗Congrès
Internationaux d‘Architecture Moderne‘ (CIAM). He was thoroughly sharing the scepticism and critics of the late movement‘s dependants, the ‗TeamX‘, who
were beginning to oppose to foregoing ideologies on architecture and urbanism. In his rejection of earlier theories, he was then elaborating deeper own thoughts on the metropolis and the role of architecture within. The part and its relation to the whole was Maki‘s agenda and he believed that ―architecture and cities share a distinct relationship to time‖15. Maki in his work on ‗collective form‘
distinguishes three different design strategies to create a collective and differentiates between Compositional-, Mega- and ‗Group Form‘. Fig. 9
Fig.9
Different forms of collective form
‗Compositional Form‘ is a commonly accepted and widely applied technique
where the focus lies on formal geometric principles stemming from a ―functional diagram‖ where the relation between buildings is mainly created on a two -
dimensional level. He rejects this rather traditional design strategy despite the fact that it is still applied today as this concept - typically for the period around the 1920s - seems to him to be of too static character and largely too limiting:
14 15
(Maki, 2008, p. 44) (Maki, 2008, p. 68) 14
As it is related to ―classical concepts concepts of the master plan‖16 it cannot be adequate
in performative terms such as flexibili f lexibility ty and a adaptability daptability.. The megastructural approach, in his view, possessed a strong potential at that time not for the sole purpose that it was the favoured chosen vehicle with which Metabolism transported its vision for the urban future. The concept‘s potential
nourishes from its capability to group a variety of uses in one structure and that it almost embodies an entire artificial landscape of its own made by man 17. Although he acknowled acknowledges ges the capacity to cope with different paces of change occurring within one structure and despite its producibi producibility lity in both economic and technological terms, he rejects this approach as well in the end. Mainly, he criticizes that an all-overarching structure would also not be able to tackle the problem of technological progress and fears that it might ―become rapidly obsolete‖18. He only grants the megaform a potential right to exist if ―a kind of master form … can move into ever new states of equilibrium, yet maintain visual
consistency and a sense of continuing order in the long ru n‖19 and without 20
having an underlying ―rigid hierarchical system‖ which would limit transformation. He claims for ―independent systems that contribute to the whole while still maintaining its identity and longevity‖21 without the interference of
other parts. These last notions already introduce his favourite own concept to create meaningful collective form. The ideas behind the category of ‗Group Form‘ will
also turn out to be of great significance concerning our contemporary urban challenges as we are also still intrigued to pin down what is actually forming our cities the way they are and how we can in fact understand and guide these processes. Maki is writing: ―That we have not previously adequately identified form - giving forces is
perhaps due to the fact that they seem to defy formulation. At a particular scale of urban activity, they have more to do with movement through space than with a standard vision of the shape of a space.‖ 22
16 17 18
(Maki & Ohtaka, 1961, p. 118) (Maki, 2008, p. 47)
19(Maki, Ibid. 20
2008, p. 50)
Ibid. Ibid. 22 (Maki, 2008, p. 59) 21
15
Therefore, our patterns of movement are Maki‘s declared describing a nd linking
processes in the city. They are building the common ground on which selforganising complex juxtapositions are taking place. Originally derived from his observations on ancient Mediterranean European cities, he believes that there must be distinct linkages between the buildings in collective forms which go beyond their formal relationships of geometric complexity. He constitutes there not only ―a clear structural relationship between the village and the houses‖23
but also - what is more important to him - that ―the elements of [this] group form are often the essence of collectivity, [which is] a unifying force, functionally, socially and spatially.‖24 Where compositional form is regarded as a closed system, Maki conceives the major very important difference in group form in its elements‘ ability to become generative, not to be limited in extension which
means that it is able to evolve into an open‐ended system of urban form. Furthermore, he distinguishes an inherent kind of bottom-up principle at work where form is generated by society and not from a top down design method opposed by an authority which is then trying to link the buildings by means of
planning. He is convinced that society‘s activity patterns are expressing the
present urban condition while they are responsible for the heterogeneity in our contemporary city in terms of simultaneousness of different lifestyles, working patterns and so forth.
Fig.10
23 24
Fumihiko Maki, Hillside Terrace project 1985-1992
(Maki, 2008, p. 52) (Maki, 2008, p. 53) 16
MOVEMENT BETWEEN GENERATIVE ELEMENTS
―Group-form is an effort … to express the vitality of o ur society, at the same
time embracing individuality and retaining the identity of individual elements25.‖ For better understanding of the applicability of Maki‘s group form concept, we
can turn to his Hillside Terrace project in Tokyo where Maki could already in his early days as a young architect start to practically apply his ideas on ‗collective form‘ in an environment where the conditions were very exceptional.
Earlier Maki himself admits that it is clear to him that in order for his desired form-giving process of ‗Group Form‘ to set substantially in motion, what would be needed today is a strong dedication from both the city and its governing authorities and their social institutions 26. Albeit these rare phased and incremental approaches to planning are pursued in a relatively limited period of time and are influenced by many often contradictory forces, Maki was offered the extraordinary chance to almost exclusively design a sophisticated mixed used quarter over an extended timeframe. Starting from 196 5, Maki‘s project was given time to evolve within a quarter of a century to produce
what he
called
―a
collection of not unrelated, separate
buildings,
but
of
buildings that have reasons to be together‖27. Over the pace of time ―architectural character‖,
functional
programme
and
expression change as well as Maki‘s own perception of the
relationship
between
society
and the built environment.28
He manages to place and Fig. 11 Creation of sense of depth through the ‗layers of space‘ at Hillside Terrace
shape his ‗white masses‘ in an
intriguing way, from phase to
25 (Maki 26
& Ohtaka, 1961, p. 120) (Maki, 2008) Ibid. 27 (Maki, 2008, p. 45) 28 (Maki, 2008, p. 68) 17
phase adding volumes, letting the area evolve from a residential neighbou neighbourhood rhood towards a mixed use collective. ―The character of the architecture and space changed perceptibly as people walked from one end of the site to the other.‖ 29 His ―modern architecture [is] engaging, even creating, its urban context‖ 30 while
it is managing to keep the different linkages among the elements although the design and programme is changing. The architectural expression may have changed from phase to phase, but what they share are more significant characteristics like basic architectural design elements such as scale of massing, volume, geometric complexity complexity,, comparable height, visual ttransparency ransparency of the ground floors, f loors, corner entrances or orientation of the inner stairs. In his approach to establish a formal dialogue between the entities, Maki is also assigning importance to the task of designing the public accessible open spaces between the buildings. With a great intuition, Maki‘s courtyards and
pedestrian ways seem to be carefully carved out of the volumes or extending adjacent buildings‘ public accessible spaces on the ground -floor level. He is
adding shifts in the ground to further differentiate and he is opening up entrance halls by glazing them to extent the experience of depths. Maki applies ―different
layers of public spaces and meanings‖31 in order to differentiate in grades of privacy and complexity. They are created through a ―deliberate design approach [which is continuously] unfolding sequences of spaces and views‖. ―Space is
experienced through sequential movement‖ and is ―allowing people to enjoy solitude‖32, interact with each other or generally speaking, to enjoy urbanity.
As it is learned so far, Maki puts a focus on the role of movement within time based developments and he is interested to comprehend the ways buildings build up meaningful relationships among each other. For that purpose, he favours his design strategy to create ‗Group Form‘, which is sequentially created through ―a system of generative elements elements in space.‖ 33 Maki‘s narrations
on the collective form are proposing a more expedient way of looking at the evolving city. A time based development which is able to adapt to changing circumstances and which makes inherent feedback processes possible is an circumstances effective way to cope with all the different movement patterns our modern society is performing within the urban environment. Maki is likewise offering us
29 30(Maki, 2008, Ibid p.68 31
p. 70) (Maki, 2008, p. 73) 32 (Maki, 2008, p. 74) 33 (Maki, 2008, p. 51) 18
concrete propositions of what he thinks would be an adequate strategy to organise a site with architectural elements and how those could be generated. With his bold architectural proficiency Maki develops a master form, a model, which is supposed to meet all the possible present and future performative attributes within the relevant location. Having once found and established this model, Maki is then initiating a generative process where he is using geometry as a tool to explore the model, to differentiate, to add complexity and to finally apply them as concrete, autonomous architectural objects on the site. This process of repetition and differentiation is what is defining his search for group form. He is devel developing oping a design sstrategy trategy whe where re the structures of the bui buildings ldings share a certain design code to support changing programs over time and all the different patterns of movement which occupy the fabric. In this collective, symbiotic relations do matter. Finally, we can see Aristotle‘s famous quote fulfilling where the resultant whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
19
03
THE EVOLUTION OF THE MIX
20
INHABITING THE CITY OF MANY CENTRES
Mobility and movement play a key role in design and evaluation of the contemporary city. So does the reintegration of residential uses into the urban centre contribute to a more d iverse and productive environment. ‗Mix-Use‘, ‗multi-functionality‘ and other notions, which are heavily in use these days are
visionary key words in contemporary urban design, which mainly describe simultaneousness and diverse programmatic juxtapositions. They describe different interconnected economic economic and social networks. Yet, many decades ago, our patterns of movement and the economic systems in and around the city were quite different and seen in a greater historical context; therefore, one realises that the urban condition of today is quite a recent phenomenon. Pinning Pinning down the morphological and organisational evolutions the city has gone through and matching them with our contemporary understanding of the urban will further deepen our understanding of the socio – economic processes the city of today is constituted of. Most descriptively, one can see that in tracing the developments of 18th century Victorian London, which was at its time about to t o develop into a radio-centric city with satellite centres. As a consequence of the industrial revolution, London witnessed dramatic population growth and it was rapidly expanding to become the largest city in the world at that time. The existing fabric and new housing developments in the city could hardly cope with and absorb the masses. The problems which resulted from congestion in terms of pollution and level of hygiene were enormous. Then technological progress made the installation of different networks of metropolitan railways possible, improving the connectivity among the suburbs and the city to t o a great extent. As commuting was now made possible, people began to move out of the centre as soon as they could afford to. In that sense, at least some parts of society could profit from the technological developments of the time. There, increased industrial productivity and a more liberal market economy could redeem the promises of the foregoing enlightenment in terms of greater personal freedom, adequate spaces and also a greater mobility. With the help of the new mobility systems, these suburban satellite centres were functioning as local communities because they were providing all the necessary shops and services which to some extent made them work autonomously. They were attractive living environments inasmuch as they were supplying the essential needs and as they were reflecting the prevalent patterns of movement quite well. The working part of the population – 21
at that time supposedly exclusively men – were commuting for work from these remote centres into the centre and after that leaving for home again. There was a clear separation between the suburb to live in and the centre to work. The inner most densely populated areas were more and more left to the less fortunate inhabitants of the industrial city and suffered from inhumane conditions. While new places for production with adjacent cheap adjacent cheap and improvised housing for the workers were emerging on the city fringe, these newly formed satellite settlements were likewise contributing to the overall image of the city region being coined by social segregation, urban sprawl and ‗fragmentation‘ 34.
Nevertheless, London at that time seemed to be a prosperous city of many communities with many different centres and vibrant places. However, out of the necessity to cope with the developments the industrial revolution brought with it, one started to think from the late 19th century on about how to better guide a city‘s development. Where straightforward infrastructu re
projects were then rigorously cutting through the dense fabric to fight congestion and to enable a better flow - like Haussmann‘s radical reorganisation of central Paris - the reality of city planning to solve the so called housing question at that time was mainly coined by the concepts of a geometric grid35 in order to control growth and to ensure access, which was accommodating the typical closed block to acquire a higher population density36. In their admiration of the technological developments of their time – amongst others the new mobility systems - the 1920s gave rise to more radical and ground-breaking city concepts. Considering his architectural ideology reflected in his projects le Corbusier, as a key figure of the modern movement, may have successfully paid respect to the changing society of his time and his contributions are without doubt unrivalled and pivotal. But despite his achievements such as the disruption with the traditional closed block type, a closer look upon his urban projects for the ideal metropolis could be a subject of criticism. Not only does one acknowledge that the prevalent hierarchical segregation of of social classes o off that era were sstill till overtaken throughou throughoutt his plans, but they were even driven further regarding his attempt to subdivide horizontally into different functions. He distinguished zones for business, housing, industries and so on37.
34
(Benevolo, 1995) (Panerai, 2004, p. 162) 36 (Lichtenberger, 1986, p. 181) 37 (Corbusier, 1929) 35
22
THE IDEAL METROPOLIS REACHES DEADLOCK
Only in rare cases was the modernist paradigm of zoning and its distinct types for separate functions interrupted. Besides very early utopian ideas of the 18 th century38, the vision of ‗the vertical city‘ in 1929 by Ludwig Hilbersheimer (Fig.12) was one of the rare if not only ideas of that time to be ―based on integrating residential and workplace functions into dense structures‖39.
Fig. 12 Ludwig Hilbersheimer, Hilbersheimer, Vertical City 1924. "For th the e first time vertical layering replaced horizontal segregation of functions"
Corbusier‘s and comparable utopian concepts of the past suffered from some
comparable conceptual and formal features which prevented them from successful deployment at their time and why they must seem even more anachr onistic onistic and obsolete obsolete in our our time. Corbusier‘s version version of an ‗open ‗open city‘40 indeed was rather meant literally fulfilling mainly the triad of ‗air, light and open space‘: Groups of detached buildings of one type were hovering over
excessively wide open spaces, which were laid out in the shape of a green carpet. One had the impression that this carpet seemed to be dotted with neatly distributed objects according to a geometric pattern. These vast green spaces now arouse incomprehension in us as their proposition back then can only be 38
The anthropologist Robert Owen envisioned industrial communities outside the city, where decent living was attempted to make compatible with industrial labour. While attempts to realise his visions failed they can be understood as critics towards the prevalent problems of organisation within the industrial city from which later experiments of town planning benefitted significantly (Benevolo, 1971; Benevolo, 1995, p. 208). 39
40 (Abalos,
2003, p. concept 222) The ‗open city‘ is derived from its inhabitants the ‗open society‘ and describes an imaginative positive condition within a city or at least in parts of it, where city planners help to overcome the social differences within a population by means of architecture and urbanism. Its ideology is coined and described by scholars like Jane Jacobs, Richard Sennett and others. 23
explained with the intention to function as an all-underlying recreation park for the sanctuary of the industrial worker 41. Moreover, except for a graphically appealing geometry, the layout of the buildings and their orientation did not pay attention to specific characteristics of the site nor is another deeper intention such as socio-economic relations distinguishable. Urban form had the function to work as a physical extension of social rules and had to stand as an ethic metaphor for coherence and order 42 within society. The idea to promote the emergence of a desired ideal social structure with the help of a graphically aesthetic all-embracing geometrical layout, like in Corbusier‘s ‗Ville Radieuse‘ (Fig. 13), never proved to sustain, nor were they really practicable - merely considering the requirement of a very powerful and supporting greater authority.
Fig.13
―The centre of a contemporary city‖
As also shown in the approach to be an ‗end in itself‘ as they were intended for f or
a fixed number of inhabitants, these utopian city concepts were more about capturing a snapshot of social and economic relationships then to support the emergence of suchlike. In doing so, they neglected the city‘s very own
characteristic of evolution and transformation. Our observations make equally clear that the heritage of Modernity‘s concepts circling around notions such as mobility, movement, speed, simultaneousness or [inter]connectivity, which were tied to the movement‘s main agenda, have
paradoxically paradoxical ly only been able to ffully ully unfold their all-pervading complexity later at the movement‘s abatement. abatement.
41 42
(Mumford, 1986) (Mumford, 1986) 24
In the middle of the sixties, a paradigm shift in the architectural discourse was initiated throughout the scene. Within this atmosphere, architects and theorists like Fumihiko Maki and Kevin Lynch in the South-Asian and North-American hemisphere or the Smithsons in the United Kingdom developed their influential ideas. They introduced a new w way ay of dealing with architectural tasks with a greater focus on the object in relation to its surrounding or to other entities. 43
They adapted ideas from prior movements like historicism but in a more neutral, clearer and unbiased way. This new approach revised the functional ideas of the early century and linked them to both more architectural and also economic issues. On the one hand, they were engaging in topics such as legibility44, frontality, how and where to enter it, how to integrate different, how to move within the fabric or towards a building 45, what is the relation between the part and whole46 and so forth. On the other hand, they were intrigued to find out which socio-economic processes are taking place within the post-industrial society and where they do actually shape the urban condition and how a building or the fabric is then shaped by these external forces47. The early post-war generation of architects48 began to foresee where the focus on the urban would lie today. What their rational ideas were introducing was a more tangible and pragmatic understanding of the city which facilitated the emergence of an ideology which is both bringing back the human - economical scale to the city and helping us to develop adequate architectural strategies for this purpose.
MOVEMENT AND THE URBAN ECONOMY
Having a look at the aforementioned mixed-use project, some basic questions about this human-economic scale shall be answered. What is precisely meant, by movement in these inner areas of the city? The answers to this will not satisfy if they are limited to touch upon simple explanations like from ‗A‘ to ‗B‘ via spaces in between ‗C‘ by means of pedestrian, public transport etc.. If one
accepts that there is reciprocity between built form and activity patterns, what are these patterns then constituted of in detail? And to what extent are these 43 44 45
(Wilkens, 2000) (Lynch, 1959, p. 135)
46(Lynch,
1960 , p. 89) (Maki, 2008) (Maki, 2008, p. 45) 48 Generally architects, planners and theorists who were members of the ‗Team X‘ of the CIAM or in line with their ideologies. 47
25
socio-economic patterns then essential to what we might call an urban- or workculture. After all, where are the linkages to the spatial disciplines and in what sense is their influence represented? Again, explanatio explanations ns can be found in the ruptures which pervaded the global economic system: The Fordist mass-production system of the manufacturing industries once had a strong impact on global economy and so did later, in the post-war era, the rapidly growing information and communication technologies, which were beginning to dramatically increase the speed and quantity of information exchange. It is an established fact 49 that the urban environment today is a fertile ground for the predominant economic sector in the developed world which can be summarised as industries based on knowledge and innovation. We now face the substantial consequences they have towards our work culture and our patterns of movement in the city. These developments are circumscribed with notions such as ‗workplace reform‘ and ‗post -bureaucracy‘50
to name but a few. Firstly, there is common belief in the working society that work itself has become more flexible and also demands more flexibility in return. An obvious example can be seen in the decline of traditional gender roles: Family life is not organised exclusively around women anymore and also their engagement in work life has significantly increased and is aiming at full equality. Furthermore, the contemporary work culture is coined by more autonomous working patterns as it shifts from strictly following formal rules or accepting a formal chain of command to rather acting in accordance to - sometimes own established principles. Being results-oriented is key while working on projects or respectively on problem solving strategies. A strictly regulated working day with predefined working hours is also less common. To achieve our targeted goals – and that is very designating – we are ―Sharing information rather than hoarding and hiding information.‖ Naturally we navigate within ―looser organizational
boundaries that tolerate outsiders coming in and insiders going out….‖ 51
The processes of urbanisation show vividly how labour related mobility is increasing. They have been picking up speed in recent decades and are still growing with no sign to mitigate. They are composed by domestic and 49
(OECD, 1996, p. 3; Sassen, 2002, pp. 19-20)
50 51
(Powell & Snellman, 2004; Heckscher, 1994) (Heckscher, 1994) 26
international migration to cities in large quantities. Here, the image of the global talent migrant, who is willing to be highly mobile and who is significantly populating cities worldwide, quickly comes to one‘s mind.
The need to exchange informatio information n contributes to the impression that patterns of work related mobility are evolving. Referring not only to business trips but in general to the increased flexibility concerning the question where ‗work‘ is
actually done, it seems that many people are almost constantly on the move these days. This shouldn‘t be misunderstood and lead to oversimplifications: It
does not mean that we are in the constant state of travelling. Researches on this field of transport geography actually show that the actual time we spend on the road has only increased to a limited extent. Nevertheless, this perception may stem from the fact that the amount of time we actually spent for activities outside our home and that the speed, distance and easiness of being on the move have considerably increased52. ―Routines and destinations to work are also differentiated, so the
predominant pattern of journey from the periphery to the centre has become supplemented by many different journey patterns between many different locations.‖53
However, despite the fact that the urban economy is producing intangible products and although new communication and better transport technologies are fostering (physical) independence, facts are rejecting the misassumption that these industries are indifferent from place and physical connectivity. Exchanges of tacit knowledge induce experts meeting each other and that necessitates labour market mobility and social networks 54. They need geographic proximity as information in general and precisely the relevant kind of information is simply easier spread. Forms of purest and most direct interaction create the intimacy which is still needed for social interaction and mercantile activity. Co-presence is a fundamental characteristic of social life and ‗virtual travel‘ or such like cannot truly compensate for physical and unhindered
dialogue. We still depend on eye-to-eye contact, on unplanned encounter and
52
(van Wee, et al., 2006, p. 112; Urry, 2007, p. 4) (Madanipour, 2011, p. 171) 54 (Simmie, 2003) 53
27
exchange of information in the real world 55. Logically corporeal mobility in real space is vital for socio-econ socio-economic omic processes. It seems obvious, that these t hese implication implicationss must find their spatial and architectural implications in the urban condition. It makes sense that especially the aforementioned economic sector – like other industries for instance the manufacturing sector – have the tendency even more to develop patterns of building up clusters. As these businesses rely on the same infrastructure and networks of information supply, they need to benefit from knowledge spill over effects and potential synergies. Specialised providers of resources such as cultural, educational, and science and research institutions generate and draw on the same pool of labour. This makes them very compatible with central urban environments where they are integrated into the ecology. Consequently residents as well as urban industries can therefore draw on maximum movement capacity and the urban mix.
55
(Urry, 2002; Castells, 2000; Madanipour, 2011) 28
MOVEMENT DRIVEN URBANISM
The urban centre is the breeding ground for what we might call a movement driven urbanism. There we observe how mono-functionality is replaced by an urban condition which is coined by diversity and vibrancy. Urban economies and residential uses shall benefit together from the amenities and civic institutions the city is offering. We have rejected clearly the application of traditional urban elements such as the closed block in favour of a more functionally differentiated and geometrically more complex typology. This is done not in favour of a market strategy but to incorporate a particular kind of urban culture. Richard Rogers notes: ―Present day concern for single objects will be replaced by concern for
relationships. Shelters will no longer be static objects, but dynamic frameworks. Accommodation will be responsive, ever-changing and ever-adjusting. Cities of the future will no longer be zoned as today in isolated one activity ghettos; rather, they will resemble the more richly layered cities of the past. Living, work, shopping, learning and leisure will overlap and be housed in continuous, varied and changing structures.‖56 Maki‘s architectural strategies can be understood as a reaction towards his perception of the city being a self-organising system. As he is putting emphasis on relationships between the parts and the whole, he recognises the importance of thinking in networks and ecologies in the city in order to sustainably plan and design portions of it. In his studies on collective form, he describes many inherent characteristics of the city such as that form changes slower than the functions they contain and that movement is the dominating factor of influence in the urban morphology. From these perceptions, he derives his architectural theory and consequently a strategy for architectural urbanism. He was intrigued by relational forces and identified means to create those ‗linkages‘ in his own design of collective urban forms. In his generative design approach Maki relies on the concept of the ‗master model‘ from which he derives the characteristics such as a ‗deep structure‘ and linkages to f orm and place the actual building. Maki‘s white masses hardly reveal what is taking
place in the inside. Nevertheless, he is sure that they are in possession of an adequate inner organisation. organisation. It enables them to perform internally and externally in a satisfactory way, which means that they support and guide different 56
(Rogers, 1990, p. 60) 29
patterns of movement, as this is the major criteria to evaluate a structure‘s
performative quality. As shown before in the analysis of the contemporary city, more than ever, his propositions seem to be very applicable and promising to us. The argument is therefore that the spatial configuration of the urban form correlates with the patterns of movement which perform in it. Movement is the underlying concept
of the city, the ‗domain to architecture‘ which relates to planning and other
spatial disciplines. In architectural urbanism, the capacity to t o guide movement is key to establish a symbiosis between a single building and its vicinity or between sets of urban areas and morphologically different parts of the city. How we understand the complexities of cities is representing the way how we intend to design them. To follow Maki means to understand the process of design not as an end in itself but as a strategy aiming at an open-ended generative process.
30
IMAGE CREDITS
Fig. 1
Hamburg's old and new street pa pattern: ttern: the old city co core re (black) (black) and its
extension into HafenCity (red).
6
Fig. 2 Grain in HafenCity. Indicated iin n red are the main axes lead leading ing into the centre. Fig. 3
6
Abstract D Drawing rawing showing accessible open space in grey. No distinction
is made between pedestrian ways, public or private-but-publicly-accessible open space. 7 Fig. 4
Main uses within buildings in HafenCity West: H Housing ousing (orange), office
spaces (blue) and buildings for education, culture and civic institutions (red). Different Different ground floor uses fo forr shops and services are not marked marked.. 7 Fig. 5
Ground floor uses in HafenCity. Source: Jürgen Bruns-Berentel Bruns-Berentelg, g, ULI
Conference Amsterdam, 10.06.2008 Fig. 6
Orientation and Layout in HafenCity supporting maximum movement
through the fabric. Fig. 7
7 8
Mixed agglomeration around Sandtorpar Sandtorpark. k. Liv Live, e, work, work, educa educate te and play
in the city Fig 8 Different sets of urban areas with different grades of privacy
8 9
Fig. 9
1
Fig. 10
Different forms of collective form (Maki & Ohtaka, 1961, p. 118)
Fumihiko Maki, Hillside Terrace project 1985-1992. Source: (Maki,
2008, p. 69) Fig. 11
Creation of ssense ense of de depth pth thr through ough the llayers ayers of space at H Hillside illside
Terrace. Source: (Maki, 2008, p. 75) Fig. 12
1 1
Ludwig Hilbersheime Hilbersheimer, r, Vertical City 1924. "For the first time vertical
layering replaced horizontal segregation of functions". Source: (Abalos, 2003, p. 233) Fig. 13
23
―The centre of a contemporary city‖. Source: (Corbusier, 1929, p.
2139, Kindle Edition)
1
31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abalos, I., 2003. Tower and Office - From Modernist Theory to Contemporary Practise. Cambrid Cambridge ge (Mass.): The M.I.T. Press.
Bassanini, A., Scarpetta, S. & Visco, I., 2000. Knowledge, Technology and Economic Growth: Recent Evidence from OECD Countries. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, Issue 259.
Benevolo, L., 1971. The origins of modern town planning. 1 Hrsg. Cambridge (Mass.): M.I.T. Press. Benevolo, L., 1995. European City (Making of Europe). New Edition Hrsg. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwel Wiley-Blackwell.l. Bruns-Berentelg, J., 2012. Die Kreation einer New Downtown und die Mechanismen der Urbanitätsentwicklung. In: H. H. GmbH, Hrsg. HafenCity Hamburg - das erste Jahrzehnt. Jahrzehnt. Hamburg: Junius Verlag, pp. 69-87.
Calabrese, L. M., 2003. Mobility: A Room with a View. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers. Canzler, W., Kaufmann, V. & Kesselring, S., 2008. Tracing Mobilities - An Introduction. In: Tracing Mobilities - Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspektive. London: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Castells, M., 1997. An Introduction to the Information Age. City , Issue 7, pp. 616. Castells, M., 2000. The Space of Flows. In: The Rise of the Network Society: Economy, Society and Culture . West Sussex: Wiley-Bla W iley-Blackwell, ckwell, pp. 407-459.
Christiaanse, K., 2012. Masterplanung ist Zukunftsplanung. In: H. H. GmbH, Hrsg. HafenCity - das erste Jahrzehnt. Hamburg: Junius Verlag, pp. 29-34. Corbusier, L., 1924. Vers une Architecture. 2nd Hrsg. s.l.:G. Cres et Cie. Corbusier, L., 1929. The City of To-Morrow and its planning. Kindle Edition Hrsg. New York: Dover Publications. Frampton, K., 2007. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 4 Hrsg. London: Thames & Hudson. Frisby, D., 1994. Simmel on Culture. London: Sage Publications.
32
HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2000. HafenCity Hamburg Masterplan. Hamburg: HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2012. A City for the 21st Century. [Online] Available at:
www.hafenci www.hafencity.com/print.php? ty.com/print.php?type=artikel&l type=artikel&language=en& anguage=en&id=17 id=17
[Zugriff am 17 08 2012]. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2012. HafenCity - facts and figures. [Online] Available at: Source: http://www.hafencity.co http://www.hafencity.com/en/overview m/en/overview/hafencity-facts-and/hafencity-facts-andfigures.html [Zugriff am 07 2013]. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, 2012. The Foundation of HafenCity: the Masterplan.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.hafenci http://www.hafencity.com/en/concep ty.com/en/concepts/the-foundation ts/the-foundation-of-hafencity-of-hafencitythe-masterplan.html [Zugriff am 20 08 2012]. Heckscher, C., 1994. Defining the Post-Bureaucratic Type. In: The Post Bureaucratic Organizati O rganization. on. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, pp. 25-28. Hooks, B., 1991. Yearning: Race, Gender and Cultural Politics.. London: Turnaround. Hoyle, B. S., 1989. The port—City interface: Trends, problems and examples. Geoforum, 20(4), pp. 429-435.
Jaffee, D., 2000. Organizational Theory. Burr Ridge: Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education. Jensen, O. B., 2007. City of Layers: Bangkok's Sky Train and How it Works in socially segregating Mobility Patterns. Swiss Journal of Sociaology, Issue 33, pp. 387-405. Jensen, O. B., 2009. Foreword: Mobilities as Culture. In: P. Vannini, Hrsg. The Cultures of Alternative Mobilities. s.l.:Ashgate.
Kaplan, C., 1996. Questions of Travel: Postmodern Discourses of Displacement (Post-Contemporary (Post-Contempora ry Interventions). s.l.:Duke University Press.
Koolhaas , R., 1996. Conversations with students. Houston: Rice School of Architecture.
33
Koolhaas, R. & Mau, B., 1998. S,M,L,XL. 2 Hrsg. New York: The Monacelli Press Inc.. Kunzmann, K. R., 2009. Creativity and strategical city development. In: Governance der Kreativwirtschaft - Diagnosen und Handlungsoptionen.
Bielefeld: transcript - Urban Studies, pp. 33-45. Lehrer, J., 2010. A Physicist solves the City. The New York Times - Sunday
Magazine, 19 November.p. MM46.
Lichtenberger,, E., 1986. Stadtgeographi Lichtenberger Stadtgeographie e - Band 1. Stuttgart: Teubner. Lynch, K., 1959. Good City Form. Massachuse Massachusetts: tts: Mit Press. Lynch, K., 1960 . The Image of the City. Massachuse Massachusetts: tts: Mit Press. Madanipour, A., 2011. Knowledge Economy and the City. 1 Hrsg. Abingdon: Routledge. Maki, F., 2008. Investigations in collective form. In: M. I. o. Technology, Hrsg. Nurturing Dreams. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 44-66.
Maki, F., 2008. Nurturing Dreams - Collected essays on architecture and the city. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.
Maki, F., 2008. Time and Landscape: Collective Form at Hillside Terrace. In: Nurturing Dreams. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, pp. 68-79.
Maki, F. & Ohtaka, M., 1961. Some Thoughts On Collective Form. Washington D.C.: Washingto W ashington n University. Mumford, E., 2011. Fumihiko Maki's Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum. Spotlight , November. Mumford, L., 1986. Yesterday's City of Tomorrow. In: The Lewis Mumford reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
OECD, 1996. The Knowledge Economy, Pairs: Organisation for Economic CoOperation and Develop Development. ment. Panerai, P., 2004. URBAN FORMS - THE DEATH AND LIFE OF THE URBAN BLOCK. Oxford (MA): Architectural Press.
Powell, W. W. & Snellman, K., 2004. The Knowledge Economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol., Issue 30, pp. 199-220. 34
Prato, P. & Trivero, G., 1985. The Spectacle of Travel. Band 3. Ramsey, K., 2010. Urban Waterfront Transformation as a Politics of Mobility. In: G. Desfor, J. Laidley, Q. Stevens & D. Schubert, Hrsg. Transformung Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow. s.l.:Routledge s.l.:Routledge,, pp. 101-.
Rogers, R., 1990. Architecture Architecture:: A Modern View. London: Thames and Hudson. Sassen, S., 2000. The Global City: Strategic Site / New Frontier. American Studies, 41(2/3), pp. 79-95.
Sassen, S., 2001. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. 2 Hrsg. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. Sassen, S., 2002. Locating cities on global circuits. Environment&Urbanization , 14(1), pp. 13-30. Schubert, D., 2010. Waterfront Revitalizations - From a Local to a Regonal Perspective in London, Barcelona, Rotterdam, and Hamburg. In: G. Desfor, J. Laidley, Q. Stevens & Schubert Dirk, Hrsg. Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow. s.l.:Routledge s.l.:Routledge,, pp. 74-97. Sennett, R., 1977. The Fall of Public Man. London / Boston: Faber and Faber. Sennett, R., 1990. The Conscience of the Eye - The Design and Social Life of Cities. 1 Hrsg. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc..
Sennett, R., 1996. Flesh and Stone. s.l.:s.n. Simmel, G., 1903. The Metropolis and Modern Life. s.l.:s.n. Simmie, J., 2003. Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer t ransfer and sharing of knowledge. Regional Studies, Issue 37. Soja, E. & Kanai, M., 2007. The Urbanization of the World. In: R. Burdett & D. Sudjic, Hrsg. The Endless City. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, pp. 54-69. Steger, M. B., 2009. Globalization - A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.. Urry, J., 2000. Sociology beyond Societies - mobilities for the twenty-forst century. London: Routledge.
Urry, J., 2002. Mobility and Proximity. Sociology, 36(2), pp. 255-274. Urry, J., 2007. mobilities. s.l.:Polity. 35
van Wee, B., Rietveld, P. & Meurs, H., 2006. Is average daily travel time expenditure constant? In search of explanations for an increase in average travel time. Journal of Transport Geography, Band 14, pp. 109-122. Vannini, P., 2009. The Cultures of Alternative Mobilities. London: Ashgate. Wellmann, B., 2001. Physical Place and cyber place: the rise of networked individualism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Wilkens, M., 2000. Über die Kunst der Außen- und Zwischenräume. In: Architektur als Komposition. Komposition. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 152-167.
Zukin, S., 1989. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. s.l.:Rutgers University Press.
36
