Giaime, Meloni

Pisano, Carlo

English

Florence Research

ǒ ¬ ȝ T  â  In search of the free-zone:a way to explore  – Carlo Pisano and Giaime MeloniFor a while now, the notions of use and appropriation, in spatial theory and practice,have been getting plenty of attention. Although this does not imply that the social1production of space  is a recent phenomenon, it is certainly true that the last decadehas seen an enormous rise in the awareness of the capacity of urban design to producea meaningful stage-set for various social groups .The discourse around the use and the appropriation of the public domain is oftenassociated with certain forms of indeterminacy in the design of spaces. Research ondifferent degrees of freedom in using and appropriating space has built a variedvocabulary of examples in the design practice. For instance the TU Delft campus offerssome areas for students called “free-zones”. Their description contains a paradoxbetween what is meant as “freedom” and the explicit restrictions in their use: “Free-zones are designated areas on campus with electricity, running water and drainage thatare free for you to use between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. for various outdoor activities.For instance, you may find it more enjoyable to study or work outside. Or why not tryholding a meeting or project presentation outdoors? Do you need an outdoor area to doresearch? Another option. The free-zones come in three different sizes, from small tolarge. You will always find an area appropriate for what you want to do” .In a reality such as the Netherlands that has been considered one of the most plannedand designed countries in the world (Dutt), it seems normal to define as “free-zone” aspace in which the different functions are spatially defined and the appropriations arelimited and controlled in time. Nevertheless in a recent conference in Lausanne , thelandscape architect Adriaan Geuze, using some of the experience of his youth as apretext, has described with nostalgia the possibility of freedom offered by the Dutchlandscape. For example, the coastal dunes or the marshy land in the south of Dordrechtare depicted as a “playground for grown up men” in which all type of activities couldtake place. Through this narration Geuze highlighted how today these areas, notaccessible anymore and controlled by rangers that protect the ‘wild’ landscape, havebeen fenced off and transformed into a sort of enclaves.The spirit of nostalgia for the wild “playground for grown up men”, which shines troughGeuze’s narration, carries a few questions on the role of these spaces in thecontemporary territory: What are the qualities of these spaces compared with theprogrammed ones? What is their role in urban dynamics? Are they still present in theover-structured and fully programmed Dutch landscape?The patchwork and the space in betweenIn 1985 Dutt and Costa opened their study on Dutch planning as follows: “TheNetherlands is decidedly the most planned country among the European nations. Only afew democracies of the world can match the planning apparatus of the Dutchgovernments. Such a state of affairs is a product of circumstances created by harshenvironmental constraints, a challenging history, sociocultural forces, hard economicnecessities, and the size of the country” (Dutt). Many authors have highlighted how thisvast planning apparatus has been spatially translated through the creation of enclosedurban forms such as housing blocks, medieval-like meandering streets, and a multitudeof peri-urban parks and tertiary islands, that, especially in the last decades, have shapeda fragmented and diversified urban territory (Lörzing).One of the sharpest interpretations of this condition was offered in 1989 by W.J.Neutelings who introduced the metaphor of the ‘Patchwork Metropolis’ to interpret thearea between Rotterdam and The Hague (1991). In his study the territory of the SouthWing of the Randstad is described as a composition of patches each one with a specificfunctional program and a specific physical structure. According to the author “Dutch1234urban planning creates enclaves […] fixed from top to bottom […]. The whole forms asystem of inert fragments that are unable to admit any further dynamic in time” (2000).Moving from the concept of the Patchwork to its spatial translation, a plausiblequestion arises: where is the free-zone in this over structured and static field?1. The space in-between the Patchwork Metropolis ¬— Redrawing, updating and inverting theoriginal map of Neutelings (1991), Carlo Pisano, 2016Usually the multitudes of uses characterising the central squares of medieval cities likeDelft or Leiden or the multi-layered design of Schouwburgplein are perceived as themain spaces of free appropriation in the urban field (Wall). In these examples howeverthe freedom is just illusory or at least staged. The different functions are, in fact,spatially defined; the possible appropriations are limited and controlled in time.Conversely to this way to approach the notion of appropriation, an empiricalobservation of the territory — here presented through a photographic representationand re-production — suggests that, in the patchwork, a higher degree of not-programmed activities is located outside the patches, outside the structured and over-designed parts of the territory that are usually the focus of attention. A closer look atthe Neutelings drawing reveals in fact the presence of a space that separates thedifferent patches, an ‘in-between space’ that provides, as Hertzberger would say, “thekey to the transition and connection between areas with divergent territorial claims and,as a place in its own right, it constitutes, the spatial condition for the meeting anddialogue between areas of different orders” (p.1).5This ‘space in between’  — ranging from a thin line along the infrastructure to a largeempty field waiting to be developed — presents a broad potential for unexpectedappropriations. In between the patches — enumerated by Neutelings as “sculptural oilrefineries, colourful bulb-fields, intimate garden cities, medieval rings of canals, eight-lane motorways, hypermarkets, functional high-rise estates, lakes for recreation, oldDutch windmills, university campuses, tourist beaches, protected dune landscapes, glassroofs of greenhouses, reflecting business parks, motels and furniture megastores,rubbish tips and golf courses, airfields, markets, squares and mosques” (1991) — existslikewise a variety of spaces defined not by their spatial and morphologicalconfiguration, but by the activities that can occur.The visual description, produced through the pictures, expresses the degree ofvagueness of these areas, building a homogeneous narration of these places. At a firstglance the characteristics of these places seem to respond to the notion of thepicturesque, namely a space with trivial aesthetic qualities. Nevertheless, the humanpresence, slightly detectable in some pictures, is able to activate these placesconferring upon them a temporary and ephemeral function. The patient observation ofthe spontaneous activities carried out by these urban pioneers  establishes a re-definition of these areas that acquires an active spatial connotation. The photographicmedium has the capacity to detect the hidden spatial qualities of the spaces inbetween, too often simply obliterated as waste lands, surfaces awaiting furtherdevelopment.2. Exploring the space in between, Giaime Meloni, 2015563. Exploring the space in between, Giaime Meloni, 20154. Exploring the space in between, Giaime Meloni, 20155. Exploring the space in between, Giaime Meloni, 2015The project of indeterminacyA visual analysis, developed through the photographic medium, highlights a series ofspaces charged with spatial qualities and potential uses, lying just outside the patches,becoming the counterpart of the Patchwork Metropolis. In this sense the notion ofspace in between approaches closely the semantic transition by Solà Morales inintroducing the terrain vague: “A charged void intended as promise, as the space ofpossible expectation, as the necessary alternative to the structured urban space”. Thecontrast between the space in between and the patches can therefore build analterative network of ‘free zones’ that overlap the official planned ones, a system ofreservoirs fundamental to the development of the territory and for rebalancing its socialfunctions.To a certain extent the distance between the staged authenticity (MacCannell),detectable inside the patches, and the free zones in between the patches can bemetaphorically translated, through literature, as the passage from a linear to a non-linear narrative. A passage from a novel in which it is possible to predict, after fewpages, how the story will end, to a non-linear plot composed by unexpected accidentsin which the chances may play a relevant role . Concretely, the first narrative is linkedto a space restricted to a certain range of social groups and activities — which areusually scheduled in time and place — while the second is open to a complex and notarranged mix of events that can or cannot take place.Coming back to the Patchwork structure, the space in between, “hard to cross, thesettlement for weak, marginal, and barely institutionalised functions” (Secchi, 1984,p.64), seems the only location in which the territory can be structured as a whole, inwhich it is possible to reduce or to increase the distance between the patches, in whichthe different worlds of the inhabitants of the urban field touch each other (Hajer, p.128).As the ‘sea’ in Massimo Cacciari’s Archipelago, the space in between the patches “is the7place of the relationship, of the dialogue and the confrontation between the manyislands that inhabit it: all by the Sea separated and all by Sea intertwined” (p.16,authors’ translation).If the design has a role in the definition of these spaces in between, this is to discoverthe strategic and vital relevance of the free-zones as pockets of indeterminacy thatallow the dynamic transformation of the territory, in which programming is banned andthe inhabitants should find on their own an equilibrium in the use and appropriation ofspace. A radical project for the Dutch Patchwork Metropolis should therefore considerboth the patches and the spaces in between: the first as the territory of the project, asthe space in which intentions and meanings are clear; the second as the place in whichdesign should leave the space to the conception of more authentic and rich meanings .      Notes 1. The notion of ‘social production of space’ is attributed to Henry Lefebvre: “(social) space is a(social) product” and “…every society – and hence every mode of production with its subvariantscreate their own spaces” see Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (N. S. Donald, Translated).Blackwell Publishing, London. 2. This is testified by the large number of young architectural activists that hold in their portfoliosprojects of refurbishment of public spaces, installations, buildings’ reuse, usually framed within aparticipatory process. 3. See the definition of “free-zones” offered in the TU Delft web page:<https://intranet.tudelft.nl/en/as/news-and-agenda/latest-news/article/detail/freezones-op-de-campus-1/> (18/04/2016). 4. See The narrative of Landscapes Symposium, International symposium on landscape. 7th to 9thOctober 2014 – EPFL, Lausanne 5. The concept of ‘space in between’ has been repeatedly used in architecture and urbanism toexpress the idea that what is left outside is often more meaningful than what there is inside,which usually represent the focus of the disciplinary or design attention. Starting from verysimple binary oppositions – such us inside/outside, public/private, nature/architecture – theconcept of ‘space in between’ has been declined at different scales and contexts, from BernardoSecchi that highlighted the space in between objects in the venetian diffuse city, proposing thedesign strategy of the ‘progetto di suolo’ (see Secchi, B., 1986. Progetto di Suolo, Casabella,520/521) to Aldo van Eyck who introduced the concept of ‘in-between realm’ to criticise themodern movement for its improper analysis and insufficient provision for man’s needs, as aperson and as a community. 6. The term ‘urban pioneer’ has been widely used in literature. One example is the analyses of thepractices of temporary uses in Berlin developed by Klaus Overmeyer in 2007. See Overmeyer, K.,2007. Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin. Berlin: Jovis. 7. See the contribution of Richard Sennet to the conference ‘The narrative of LandscapesSymposium’, International symposium on landscape. 7th to 9th October 2014 – EPFL, Lausanne 8. From the statement of Robert Venturi: ‘richness of meaning’ is favoured over ‘clarity of meaning’in Venturi, R., 1977. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. London: Architectural Press.References — Cacciari, M., 1997. L’Arcipelago, 3rd ed. Milano: Adelphi. — Dutt, A.K., and Costa, F.J., 1985. Public Planning in the Netherlands: Perspectives and Change sincethe Second War, Oxford: Claredon Press. — Hajer, M. and Reijndorp, A., 2002. In Search Of The New Public Domain, Rotterdam: NAI Publisher. — Hertzberger, H., 2005. Lessons for students in architecture, Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. — Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space (translated by N. S. Donald). London: BlackwellPublishing. — Lörzing, H., Van Leewen, W., and Soekimin, S., 2006. VINEX! Een Morfologische Verkenning[VINEX! A Morphological Survey], Rotterdam: RPB/Nai Publishers. — MacCannell, D., 1973. “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings”8SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTERTHE URBAN TRANSCRIPTS JOURNAL ISSN 2514-5339 / A PROJECT BY URBAN TRANSCRIPTS  ALL CONTENT PUBLISHED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-NONCOMMERCIAL-NODERIVATIVES 4.0INTERNATIONAL LICENSE    in American Journal of Sociology, 73(3), pp. 589-603. — Meier, S. and Reijdorp, A., 2010, Themawijk. Wonen op een verzonnen plek [ThemedNeighbourhood. Living in an Imaginary Place], Bussum: THOTH. — Neutelings, W.J., 1991. Willem Jan Neutelings Architect, Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. — Neutelings, W.J., 2000. “Our Lack of highways” in Archis, 3, p.79-80. — Overmeyer, K., 2007. Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin, Berlin:Jovis. — Secchi, B., 1984. Un progetto per l’urbanistica, Torino: Einaudi. — Secchi, B., 1986. “Progetto di Suolo” in Casabella, 520/521. — Sennet, R., et al. 2014. “History / Imagination – Narratives of national and local identity enarrative as collective and individual memories”paper presented to The narrative of LandscapesSymposium, International symposium on landscape, 7-9 October 2014, EPFL, Lausanne. — Solà Morales, I., 1996. “Terrain vague” in Quaderns, 212, pp. 36-38. — Wall, A., 1999. “Programming the Urban Surface” in On Landscape Urbanism, Austin TX: Centerfor American Architecture and Design, pp. 182-193.Carlo Pisano, Architect, Urbanist, PhD (Doctor Europaeus). He has completed the “PostgraduateMaster in Urbanism” at TU Delft in 2011. In 2011 and 2012 he worked for the Studio AssociatoBernardo Secchi e Paola Viganò. Since 2013 he has been a lecturer and visiting critic in manyEuropean universities. He is currently a post-doctoral researcher in the University of Cagliari andconsultant in the University of Florence for the Strategic Metropolitan Plan of Florence.Giaime Meloni, Photographer and PhD in architecture. The aim of his work is to explore the roleof the photography as a sensible instrument to narrate spatial complexity. His research has been  published in various publications (MAM Saint Etienne, INTRU). He has participated in severalInternational Conferences (CCA, FAUP). He teaches photography as an instrument in architecturaldesign in France and Italy. He regularly writes for DOMUS and is a contributing editor of GENDAMagazine. website       Volume 1, no. 1 March 2017

In search of the free-zone. A way to explore.

https://flore.unifi.it/bitstream/2158/1098178/1/1%20-%202017.pdf

In search of the free-zone. A way to explore.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Florence Research