Architect Notebook ..... THE SPACES AROUND 2

URBAN SPACE

The impact of new building upon existing settlements can have profound consequences if an existing urban ‘grain’ is not responded to sympathetically. Conversely, when establishing complexes of new buildings, it is important to establish a hierarchy of spaces between buildings which can be ‘read’ as clearly as that within buildings.

URBAN SPACE TYPOLOGY

Just as the notion of ‘type’ may be applied to buildings (and, indeed, to the elements which constitute them, such as structure, services and cladding), so may it be applied to urban spaces. The concepts of ‘centrifugal’ and ‘centripetal’ space represent two fundamental ‘types’ of urban space. As already
discussed, spaces around a central monument or ‘figure’ (centrifugal) assume the role of a backdrop or ‘ground’, whereas spaces enclosed by building façades (centripetal) are themselves ‘figures’ within a passive architectural backdrop, or ‘ground’ (Moughtin).

Square – enclosure

Enclosure

Within this framework of centrifugal and centripetal, secondary ‘types’ emerge, which, historically, have constituted familiar structuring elements of our towns and cities. Modernist ‘centripetal’ typologies reversed the accepted orthodoxy of the enclosed square, and, in the process, did not contribute significantly to its development. The traditional enclosed square as a focus for social and commercial activity, as well as being the symbolic core of the community, has rarely been successfully reiterated where enclosure has been subsumed by an ill-defined open space accommodating a series of free-standing architectural ‘monuments’.

Monument

Monument

But some squares, whilst adhering to such accepted canons, also accommodate, and are subservient to, a major civic architectural ‘monument’. The urban theorist, Camillo Sitte, identified two types of square: ‘deep’ and ‘wide’. These classifications were largely dependent upon how a major civic building addressed the square. Within the ‘deep’ square, the ‘monument’ (traditionally a church) addresses the shorter side of the square and, for maximum domination, its elevation forms the vertical determinant to one side, the other three sides being a neutral backdrop designed to accentuate the primacy of the ‘monument’.

Street – enclosure

Whilst the street can take on the role of the square, as a hub of social contact or commerce, it is also a route, or path, leading from one event to another. However, the latter role, in coping with ever-increasing traffic densities, has tended to obscure the street’s traditional sense of ‘place’, where generous pavements effectively extended buildings’ social spaces into the public realm. The ‘rules of thumb’ applying to the design of squares can also be adapted to the street; a sense of enclosure depends upon the same width to height criteria, for example.

Street – enclosure

But because of the street’s linear form, designers have invoked various devices, not only to punctuate its length, but also to provide a satisfactory visual termination, thereby signaling entry and exit from the street as ‘place’. Beaux Arts planners positioned major buildings as visual ‘stops’ to streets or ‘boulevards’ , and designers with ‘picturesque’ tendencies favored ‘setbacks’ to the facade, or variations in elevational treatment and materials, as punctuations to avoid monotony. 

Façade

Facade

Much of the characterization of the street can be attributed to its architecture. Architects such as Robert Adam in Edinburgh’s New Town, John Wood the elder and his son in Bath, or John Nash in London, favored a monumental, classical architecture with repetitive bays using one material, generally dressed stone or stuccoes brick. Hence the street appeared formal and heroic in scale, characteristics quite at variance with the typically English medieval street with its informal, meandering plan, and picturesque assembly of disparate architectural forms and materials. 

Corner

Corner

Just as architects throughout history have celebrated the corner of their buildings in a variety of ways, so have urban designers recognized the importance of the corner formed by the junction of two streets. Neo-classical stylophilists used the column to mark the corner, as did their modernist successors in their quest for structural expression. By contrast, nineteenth century designers (and to some extent, their post-modern successors) invoked picturesque devices to intensify the corner as a visual event. Whilst there are two generic corner types (internal and external), it is the external corner which punctuates the street and has generated its own varied typology.