|
The Urban Room
London-based architect Michel Mossessian on why it should be the role and responsibility of the architect to think through and define public spaces
Public space has always been shaped by and served to represent political power. Public squares have traditionally been a stage for symbolic representations of personal wealth and power, through statues, columns and fountains; or, as has been the model in totalitarian countries, the military might and (strictly controlled) celebration of “the party” by “the people”.
The services of western architects are increasingly in demand in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Doha and China. They are being asked to create landmark “building-objects” which serve as physical manifestations of the material wealth of these countries, but the newly created spaces around these buildings and the way the buildings relate to the existing urban typologies around them are more problematic and receive less attention. In countries where the public square as an urban typology has no historical significance in relation to people’s daily lives, entirely new urban structures are being created. But what is the function of these new public spaces? How should they be defined?
Who is responsible for public space?
Architecture has the power not only to reflect, but to transform the mindsets of the people that inhabit the spaces it creates. Questions about the function of public space in countries with non-democratic political systems can serve to force architects to question their role in defining future public spaces in Europe. For example, in London, it is currently city planners who are responsible for defining (and defending) public spaces, but in reality their role is that of negotiator: they negotiate with property developers to guarantee the requisite contribution to the public realm, which is quantified through categories such as public art, green space and so on. This leaves little margin for creative thinking. Shouldn’t it be the role and responsibility of the architect to think through and define public spaces?
The space between buildings should be as beneficial to those outside the walls of a building as it is to those inside. The models inherited from the 20th century have been based on economic drivers. It is time to create a more balanced relationship between economic factors and social and environmental ones. Airports and shopping malls (and the two are increasingly indistinguishable) are dedicated to the consumption of goods. Leisure is confined to increasingly rare green spaces and the space between buildings is left to function as an extension of the address it is attached to. The public realm surrounding a building is used to augment its value as real estate and “public art” is added to add economic, not social, value.
Public spaces should be generous to the people who use them. They should not function to exclude or to divide, creating ghettoes by causing any single person to feel uncomfortable in them. Public spaces should not define their own function, dictating people’s behaviour; they should function as a space that belongs to the people, facilitating meeting and exchange.
Creating new models for public space
The reconstruction of Europe has been motivated by the continuation of economic development. This model is now being applied on a global scale – but what is the potential impact on social and environmental values when creating completely new urban environments? A new model must be put into place to negotiate between the social, the environmental and the economic. In the onwards rush towards the new, architects need to create the time to stop and think. Architects too often forget the context of their buildings, responding only to the client’s demands which are driven by economic considerations. People should be the central concern of any governing structure. How can architects ensure that people are placed back into the centre of public space?
It is necessary to create models that encourage public ownership and public authorship. One such model is public art – but not public art which creates purely decorative objects (the model of “the statue in the square”). Aesthetic values can be harnessed to communicate social and environmental concerns. A model such as the “New Patrons”, developed in France, in which community members are directly involved in the commissioning of art works for public spaces – be they public squares or hospital waiting rooms – act to meditate between different members of a community and encourage shared ownership.
The term “urban room” is a new way of thinking about defining public spaces. Working in Doha, I have developed a new model for public space, drawing on the function of the majlis in traditional Qatari architecture: the majlis is a space that negotiates between public and private functions, a space for meeting, greeting and exchange. The new public square should equally serve the function of acting as an open space for exchange, but inhabited by members of the public as if it were a room in their own home. As well as encouraging a sense of public ownership, the urban room provides an opportunity to rethink the function of public spaces in relation to their defining architectural elements (landscaping, public art, building facades). It is an invitation to think just as creatively of the void as of the volume.
|
Plan Magazine
