Merry go Round

Lien

Cherry blossom

"Jadis, tout le monde se rassemblait pour la floraison des cerisiers. On construisait un écran autour d'un endroit très confortable, très temporaire, très éphémère et lié à la nature. C'était le plus simple et le plus riche des espaces. Le plus important, dans ce cas, c'est d'abord l'absence d'architecture. Les gens se réunissaient, et puis seulement après l'architecture se formait. C'est l'esprit de la méthode japonaise traditionnelle. L'activité ou la représentation est plus importante que l'architecture, et pour la soutenir, il faut des éléments physiques élémentaires." Ryan Raymund, Toyo Ito, in Neuf, no.164

Fashion Apartments, Pico Rivera, CA.

ultrafragols

OASE 71

editorial


A basic and recurring theme in architectural discourse – particularly since the advent of the modern city – is the issue of public space. The story is well known. The rise of the modern city is characterized by the disappearance of self-evident collective clusters (family, local community), which were part and parcel of more traditional and often agrarian societies. Other, 'light communities' arise and insert themselves within the anonymous sphere of the modern city. Collective experience is transformed, though not suppressed, by the increasing importance of individuality. A new form of 'collectivity' arises, not defined by inevitability, but rather through self-chosen communities. Giving form to this new collective sphere is an important challenge for contemporary architecture.

This OASE highlights the 'old question' of public space and the role of architecture within it. This is not without reason. In the past decade, remarkably negative opinions were voiced on the condition of public space. In the 1990s, Michael Sorkin's well-known book Variations on a Theme Park was given the subtitle 'The End of Public Space', Rem Koolhaas spoke of the 'evaporation of the public realm' in his essay 'The Generic City', and Bruce Robbins named his book The Phantom Public Sphere. This wave of publications has made it seem as if public space has suffered permanent erosion and loss of quality, and is no longer a matter of concern to architects.

Despite this negative tone, architects have continued to think through, conceptualize and shape the collective sphere and public space. This begs a number of questions: Is the treatment of the public sphere in architecture still determined by the negative discourse of the 1990s, which proclaimed the end of public/collective space, or is a shift visible? How should the erosion of the public sphere be understood, when an increasing number of buildings explicitly attempt to express a 'collective identity' or play a 'community-forming role' (regardless of the question whether that is even possible today)?

In this issue we address a number of these questions, and sketch out a few contemporary approaches in thinking and practice. Central to the issue are not the social structures that underpin the collective sphere, but the urban formations of large (semi-)public buildings that form the public domain. At the intersection of architecture and urban design, questions are posed about how the collective sphere is shaped. To what extent do the design disciplines truly give form to public life? What role do they play in relation to the many faces of collectivity that seem to arise in the interstices of the urban realm?

Approaches to the collective sphere from the field of architecture prove to be diverse both in subject and style, but above all they are marked by continual development. François Claessens and Wouter Davidts explore the role of the monument as a locus for the collective imagination and the public debate. Lara Schrijver discusses the implicit presence of the collective in the work of Ungers and Koolhaas. Maurice Harteveld examines whether there are spatial interventions that define space in such a way that a public and sometimes even collective life spontaneously arises. The research of ZUS (Zones Urbaines Sensibles) illustrates the relationship between the various interests of private and public clients and their relation to collective interests. Fransje Hooimeijer orchestrated a conversation with Edzo Bindels, Ruurd Gietema and Floris Alkemade about the contribution of architecture and urban planning to the public and collective domain. Two contributions pointedly illustrate the role of architecture in framing or creating the public space of the city (Tine Cooreman, Guy Chatel). The question of collectivity is made directly visible by two contributions that examine the images of collective expression (Paul Meurs, Tim Eshuis).

Do the articles bear witness to a change from the negativist discourse of the nineties? The reader may judge for himself. The fact is that all the texts offer a specific fascination for the collective sphere, not only as the setting of continual social transformation but in particular as an essential architectural element of urban formation.

Tom Avermaete, Fransje Hooimeijer, Lara Schrijver

Articles in this issue

Sampa's Solids Paul Meurs

The Archipelago City Piecing together Collectivities Lara Schrijver

Public Moulds and Monuments On Jan de Cock's Denkmal 9 and Henry van de Velde's Ghent University library Wouter Davidts

What is Collective? photo essay Tim Eshuis

Designing the Collective Domain Floris Alkemade, Edzo Bindels and Ruurd Gietema in conversation Fransje Hooimeijer

On Bigness and the City Tine Cooreman

The Forum, or the Figuration of a Public Architecture Guy Chatel

Reinventing Architectural Monumentality Francois Claessens

Bigness is All in the Mind Bigness viewed in terms of public space Maurice Harteveld

Laboratorium Rotterdam: Decode Space! In search of new perspectives on/for public space. Case study: Erasmus Medical Centre Zones Urbaines Sensibles

OASE urban formation - collective spaces

think pink

Mikimoto 2 by Toyo Ito & Associates, Architects - Ginza, Tokyo
Photographed for Domus Magazine March 2006

Iwan Baan site