Viva Las Vegas

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 21 | Comments: 0 | Views: 107
of 13
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Figure 1. New York, Subway Hub 42nd Street by the Inter-borough Rapid Transit Company (NYC Transit Authority Architectural Staff) 1903-1913 (photo by Maurice Harteveld, April 4th 2004)

IR. M.G.A.D. HARTEVELD

Viva Las Vegas A search for the urban design task of interior public space
Ph.D. research: Interior public space Chair: Urban Design Promotor: Prof. ir. H.C. Bekkering Supervisor: Prof. ir. H.C. Bekkering Communications to: [email protected]

ABSTRACT In explorations of the notions of public space, public interiors are generally seen as undemocratic and more private spaces. This notion is based on the Roman distinction between pub-

licus and privatus, making public space, as a public case, refer primarily to res publica. - On
the other hand, there is a related Roman public law that deals with the common interest of urban society, and could include cases of interior public space. -Most sociological research in contemporary daily life reveals these spaces as public. For urbanism, this research can be seen as the social context, because the urbanist is primarily focused on the city: the civi-

tas, and not the whole societas. More specifically, for urban designers who deal with public
space, it traditionally means focusing on the outdoor space, and although this is almost always synonymous with the public domain or publicly owned space, I believe that public space can be more than this. For urbanism this means there is a need for new understanding and an extension of the design task.

INTRODUCTION The debate around public space seems to focus more and more on interior public space. Because they approach their work from different angles, designers and critics do not limit

36 Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld

Figure 2. Paris, Passage du Caire by Percier and Fontaine (photo by Maurice Harteveld, February 7th 2005)

Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld 37

themselves to outdoor space. This is not extraordinary since in present day Western society we see a great many exemplary interiors that are part of urban life and urban structure. Being in the city usually means that interior public space cannot be avoided. Some of these interiors are even constituent parts of the contemporary city. Millions of people use railway stations to change trains or to enter the city. Often a transfer at Rotterdam Central Station is as common as a walk through your own street. In New York people wanting to go from 7th Avenue to Grand Central and 5th, can use a pedestrian tunnel and the 42nd Street Shuttle, which provide easy links between the two subway stations. In Toronto an underground and elevated walkway system link offices and shopping centres, and in Paris arcades form comfortable connections. Not only has traffic defined the usage of the urban interiors, but the length of stay has as well. Think of the mall, for example. It is quite common to meet at the mall in American suburbs. Here the enclosed mall becomes the new city centre. At the same time, in the inner city itself department stores and fashionable shops are urban meeting places, with restaurants, cafes, and lounges. These examples support the idea that private buildings can also be public space; in this case they are part of the network of public space. But what is the urban design task in this analysis?

EXPLORING PUBLIC SPACE Before looking at interior public space as an urban design task, it would be prudent to explore the notions of public space. In general, an urban design task is an assignment within urbanism, but it is also closely related to architecture (Bekkering, 1999:7). Urbanism can be defined as the discipline of planning and organising the city and forming the public domain, while architecture plans and forms the private domain: the building and its premises (Heeling, 1991:17). From this hypothesis the two disciplines meet at the boundary between public and private domains. In this definition public is defined by ownership. Thus, public domain is the territory belonging to a state or to the government (Webster’s Dictionary, 1913:443). Interior public space shows that the boundary of public space is not always sharply defined. It does not always follow the contours of the public domain. Thus, how can public space be defined except by ownership? This leads to a sociological question: What is public? In philosophy the discussion of public space is only a few decades old. Although this discussion is comparatively recent, an enormous number of publications from the social and cultural science perspectives have already been written about it. These publications develop a wide variety of arguments and redefine contemporary public space as a democratic space. Being public, it is of or pertaining to the

38 Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld

people; belonging to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community. It is the opposite of private (Webster’s Dictionary, 1913:1139, 1159). As in Roman times, participation in the res publica is often a matter of ‘going along’. Today public life has become a formal obligation in which most people approach their public business in a spirit of acquiescence. From this point of view the private has become a new focus, a new commitment and belief. This private commitment was an escape from the world at large and from the formalities of the res publica as a part of that world (Sennet, 1977:3-4). In this way certain contemporary private buildings, such as the Sony Store in Manhattan (Siegel, 1992), provide places for people to flee from daily life. Conveniently located, the store is full of the latest electronic toys, from the latest in personal audio technology to high-definition television. The atrium of the building is a well air conditioned spot to sit down and rest on a hot summer day. The Sony Wonder Technology Lab is a place for kids of all ages to learn about technology through interactive exhibits. Young visitors can experience audio technology, discover technology’s role in modern medicine by experimenting with ultrasound and endoscopy, or play the next wave of interactive video games By enclosing the public space, a similar example of new social focus can be found. Avoiding all kinds of climatological, ecological, and social influences, the urban ennui is eliminated. The West Edmonton Mall (Sunderland, 1981-1985) is the world’s largest entertainment and shopping centre. This mercantile establishment consists of a carefully landscaped complex of shops representing leading merchandisers. The size and programme of this Canadian mall define it not as a regional or super-regional mall, but as a unique international shopping attraction (Crawford, 1992:7). The complex consists of ten anchor stores, eight hundred shops, and more than one hundred restaurants, twenty-six movie theatres, a casino, and seven amusement parks. It is Alberta’s number one tourist attraction. There is even a shuttle service that runs from the airport to the mall. Although the mall is suburban, located on a convenient highway and completely enclosed, its interior public space is designed as a network of promenades, which are typologically similar to others in inner cities. Like avenues, the covered space is constructed of two rows of palm plants and grassy strips or canals between the two walkways. The mall has space for fountains, a mini golf park, and even two lakes, one for ice skating and the other for dolphin shows (with a replica of the Santa Maria).

Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld 39

Figure 3. Edmonton, West Edmonton Mall by Maurice Sunderland, 1981 – 1985 (photo by Matthias Huijgen, July 7th, 2003)

Such mega-malls are comprised of synthetic shopping streets with small facades to simulate lots in blocks. By this the designers stress the iconic idea of a traditional inner city. Nevertheless, this image does not make it a new city centre, because carts, commercial activities, demonstrations, and gatherings are restricted (Sorkin, 1992:xv). How public are these new city centres? The malls are not democratic space. Like most interior public space, the property and management are private, limiting accessibility. In the private domain ‘public’ seems a fiction. Unlike the malls, interior public spaces are public. One difference between espacios públicos and espacios colectivos seems to be the designer’s solution (De Solà Morales, 1992:LVG). Collective space is defined as being public but privately owned. By introducing this new notion, the difference in ownership remains the most important basis for defining spaces. For social science this is defined as public space. According to this reasoning, public is defined by social behaviour or by social order rather than ownership. Sociologists refer to the public realm and the public sphere. The public realm, as the sphere of action and speech, contrasts with the private realm of the household as the sphere of necessity or existence. Survival and reproduction of life are centred there (Arendt 1958:54-58). This is closely related to terms such as bürgerliche öffenlichkeit or simply öffenlichkeit, translated as public sphere (Habermas, 1962:70, 1991:xv). Using the term ‘realm’ to refer to a region suggests an association with the dominion of a king. Thus, the public realm could be defined as an area controlled by the public or the people. A different point of view sees the sphere as the

40 Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld

circuit or range of action, knowledge, or influence. Formally defined, the sphere is a place of existence, but also a rank; an order of society or social position (Webster’s Dictionary, 1913:1384). If the space of private ownership is not always primarily private since people can also come together on private property (as a public), we should redefine ‘public’. In this way we can begin to understand interiors as part of urban network public spaces, and thus, by redefining ‘public’ , we can also formulate the urban design task for these interiors.

REDEFINING ‘PUBLIC’, FORMULATING THE URBAN DESIGN TASK Ideas of public and private derive from the Roman distinction between publicus and priva-

tus, thereby making public space refer to res publica. Yet Roman public law did not stop at
the borders of the public domain. Because it was concerned with the common interest of urban society, the res publica was extended to the res extra commercium (Kichner, 1949:10, 22). Thus Roman public law is comprised of three cases; res divini iuris (involving the law of the gods or religion), res communes omnium (involving the entire society, and res publicae (involving what is owned by the government). To redefine ‘public’ in contemporary society according to the triad of religion, society, and government is very difficult. First, the difficulty begins with the religious places in the contemporary city. Although buildings such as temples or churches can still be found, religion has become a private matter now. Yet, unlike other private domains, many countries forbid police officials and parliamentarians from entering such places during services. Second, even the government buildings have become more private. For safety reasons most government buildings are now only accessible through appointments. Security gates mark the entrances of parliament, city hall, and ministry buildings. Third and most relevant, in redefining public space the most hidden difficulty lies in what the Romans called res communes omnium - what is most vital for society. For example: water and air were included under Roman law. But what else is a vital part of contemporary society? What should be public in the contemporary city? Like the general question of what is ‘public’, this can be a sociological question. This may explain the enormous number of recent publications redefining public space by social geographers and urban sociologists. For urbanism their research can be seen as providing the social context, because the urbanist is primarily focused on the city: the civitas, and not the entire societas. For urban designers dealing with the public space traditionally means centring outdoor space. Although this is almost always synonymous with the public domain or the publicly owned space, public space can be more. If society has changed, so has the city. And if the pubic realm has changed, so has the public space.

Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld 41

Extraordinary examples can be found in Las Vegas. In this city the buildings form the urban structure, and urban life takes place inside. Without redefining ‘public’ (res publica), we can conclude that these places are the domain of this society and are an integral part of this city. Focusing on The Strip, we find 514 square miles of interior, most of which is publicly accessible. From Sahara (Maltzmann, 1952) to Mandalay Bay and Luxor (Klai and Juba, 1993-1999), we find all kind of shops, casinos, food courts, entertainment halls, and hotel rooms. While some people watch Elton John playing the red piano at The Colosseum at Caesar’s Palace (Grossman and Harris, 1966), others visit the DKNY store and Siegfried and Roy’s white tigers between gambling at The Mirage (Bergman and Corrao, 1989). Amazing hotels, incredible light shows, unforgettable performers in a place that seems unreal. Once it depended on the car for transport, now it is configured for collective forms of movement. The public buildings of The Strip are connected with moving sidewalks, monorails, walkways, and skywalks (Obrist and Koolhaas, 2001:592-617). All these connections are covered over, which makes it, along with the public space in the buildings, one huge network of interior public space. It is a new pattern. Like Nolli’s Las Vegas, public buildings can be part of the usage of the city. The designer’s aim is to derive an understanding of this new pattern (Venturi, Brown and Izenour, 1972:24-25, 76). Another interesting example is downtown Las Vegas. In the 1980s the old inner city was losing retail and office tenants to the suburbs, and its gaming revenues were lost to The Strip. With the design of Fremont Street Experience (Jerde, 1995-1996), the decline was not only reversed, but the design became the number one reason to visit. Today, downtown Fremont Street comes to life every evening with a show of millions of lights and half a million watts of sound. It is part futuristic mall, part urban theatre. In the design an arched glass and steel roof was introduced. The old main street is covered over so rain won’t discourage the public. Because the quality of the public space has been improved, it has attracted new investors and visitors. The design of the enormous vault turned the outdoor space into an interior public space. Both the public interiors of The Strip and the covered public space of Freemont Street ask for new understandings of urbanism. To redefine the urban design task we should focus on the contemporary use of the urban network and the real public space in the contemporary city. As the Las Vegas examples show, the usage of the city is not always defined by its outdoor space. The usage of this city is mainly within interior space. In addition, stations, hubs, skywalks, and arcades are part of the contemporary city. In most metropolises public interiors give access to shops and supermarkets. Entrances to parking garages and specialised stores can be found in department stores, and many restaurants are accessible from food courts. In general, public buildings and covered public spaces are part of the network of public space. For this a new approach to the design of public space is needed. New maps should be drawn, redefining the public space and the urban design task. This can be compa-

42 Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld

Figure 4. Las Vegas, Inside the New York New York by Neal Gaskin (Gaskin and Bezanski) and Yates Silverman, 1997 (photo by Daniel Vonburg, May 7th 2004)

Figure 5. Las Vegas, Freemont Street Experience by Jon Jerde, 1995 – 1996 (photo by Prashant Dayachand, December 20th, 2003)

Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld 43

rable to Nolli’s Map of Rome (Nolli, 1748). By researching interior public spaces within their spatial context, their contribution to the urban network becomes clearer. Do they contribute, is there urban usage? What is the position and composition of such space? Is it freely accessible and does it provide access to other interiors? Most important, we need to know why this is so. Every design solution had and has a different social context. How do the changes in the city affect the design task of public space? There is more than one answer. Every type of public interior has its own evolution, and because the meanings of ‘public’ have also evolved, the analyses of interior public spaces must be made over time. Research on interior public space must be more than simply research in the present. Research like this will provide insight into the changes in the contemporary and the future city. We can learn from our own disciplinary history and use our knowledge for designing public interiors. In urbanism the public space was always there, but it should not be limited to outdoor space. From the point of urban design, this research will join the many explanations and answers sociologists have already given to these changes. Against the backdrop of terms such as ‘public realm’ and ‘public sphere’ in the design of public space, the res extra commercium has not really left the theatre.

LITERATURE
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. The University Press, Chicago. • Bekkering, H.C. (1999). Voetlicht op het stedebouwkundig ontwerpen in het fin de siècle: naar een stedebouw van conventie. Oration (Inaugural address), Delft University Press, Delft. • Crawford, M. (1992). ‘The World in a Shopping Mall’. In: Sorkin, M., Variations on a Theme Park. The New American City and the End of Public Space. Hill and Wang, New York. • De Solà Morales, M. (1992). ‘Un Nuevo reto: Urbanizar lo Privado. Espacios públicos y espacios colectivos’. In: Sección de Cultura y Arte, La Vanguardia, Barcelona. • De Solà Morales, M. (1992). (Translation: E. Bet) ‘Openbare en collectieve ruimte. De verstedelijking van het privé-domein als nieuwe uitdaging’. In: Oase No 33, SUN, Nijmegen. • Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgelichen Gesellschaft. Hermann Luchterhand Verlag GmbH, Neuwied and Berlin. • Habermas, J. (T. Burger). (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press, Cambridge. • Heeling, J. (1991). Stuurman op de wilde vaart. Oration (Inaugural address), Publikatieburo Bouwkunde, Delft. • Kichner. (1949). Beiträge zur Geschichte des Begriffs ‘öffenlich’ und ‘öffenliches Recht’. Dissertation, Universität Göttingen, Göttingen. • Obrist, H.U. and R. Koolhaas. (2001). An Interview with Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi. In: Chung, J.C., J. Inaba, R. Koolhaas, and S.T. Leong; Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping. Project on the City 2, Taschen Verlag Benedikt, Cologne. • Sennet, R. (1977). The Fall of Public Man, Knopf, New York. • Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park. The New American City and the End of Public Space, Hill and Wang, New York. • Venturi, R., D.S. Brown and S. Izenour (1972). Learning from Las Vegas, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. • Webster Dictionary (1913) Edited by Noah Porter. Online version of Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (updated on January 9, 1997). G. & C. Merriam Co., University of Chicago, Chicago.

44 Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld

DESIGN CASES
Bergman and Corrao (1989). The Mirage, Las Vegas, USA, • Grossman, M. and J. Harris. (1966). Caesar’s Palace, Las Vegas. • Jerde, J. (1995 – 1996). Fremont Street Experience, Las Vegas. • Klai, J. and K. Juba. (1993 – 1999). Mandalay Bay and Luxor, Las Vegas. • Maltzmann, M. (1952). Sahara, Las Vegas. • Nolli, G. (1748). Map of Rome, Rome, Italy, • Siegel, G., ‘The Sony Store in Manhattan, 550 Madison Avenue, 1992’. In: Johnson, P. and J. Burgee. (1978 – 1984). The Sony Building, originally The AT&T Building, New York. • Sunderland, M. (1981 – 1985). The West Edmonton Mall, Edmonton, Canada.

Ir. M.G.A.D. Harteveld 45

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close