številka / volume 161-162
december / december 2003
letnik / anno XXXIII
mobilnost, infrastrukture
mobility, infrastructure
vsebina številke
table of contents
Miha Dešman Uvodnik
Editorial
Andrej Hrausky Drugačen način življenja
Janez Koželj Portoval
Portoval
Aljoša Dekleva Kraški zidar
Nande Korpnik Nov pristanek arhitekture v Mariboru
Jože Peterkoč Zgodba iz predmestja
Pablo Guillin, Urša Komac Intervju z Oriolom Bohigasom
Matevž Čelik Infrastruktura
Blaž Križnik Fragmenti avtomobilnosti
Blaž Križnik, Peter Šenk, Zhaohui Wu Vsakdan je/kot kompleksnost infrastrukture??
Petra Čeferin Misli o svetlobi, geometriji in snegu
Thoughts on light, geometry and snow
Eva Scheffler Urbana spužva
Urban Sponge
Achim Menges Postagrikultura
Postagriculture
Polona Filipič, Rossana Atena Archizoom Associati 1966-1974
Polona Filipič, Rossana Atena Intervju z Andreo Branzijem
Tinka Prekovič Fatamorgana na obzorju!
Breda Bizjak Proces Pula podmestje
Potniški center Ljubljana
abforum
Jurij Kobe Razmišljanje v skicah
Nataša Koselj Obnoviti pogled
To Reinstate a View
Heinz Paetzold "Kulturni obrat" v sodobnem urbanizmu
uvodnik

Mobilnost

Atenska listina je leta 1933 transport (mobilnost) opredelila kot eno izmed štirih primarnih urbanih funkcij - poleg stanovanja, dela in zabave. To je bilo sicer res priznanje pomena mobilnosti, toda mobilnost je še vedno ostala v domeni specialistov za transport, ki so (marsikje je tako še vedno) definirali njene elemente, njihovo uporabnost, infrastrukturo in lokacijo. S kritiko CIAM-a v petdesetih se je radikalno spremenilo pojmovanje mobilnosti. Pri znameniti risbi Luisa Kahna je gibanje postalo osrednja tema urbanizma. Od takrat dalje vloga mobilnosti v našem okolju in življenju strmo narašča.

Mobilnost je dejstvo, ki zadeva vse plasti vsakdanjega življenja. Zaseda vse več prostora, tako v času, ki ga preživimo v sredstvih mobilnosti, avtomobilih, letalih, vlakih, kot tudi v prostoru. Podrejena ji je tudi ekonomija, tako zasebna kot družbena. Podrejen pa ji je tudi življenjski ritem večine ljudi.

V urbanem smislu je mobilnost kreator stihije v prostoru. Suburbanizacija, ki je posledica mobilnosti, je povzročila eksplozijo mesta v periferijo. Vsakodnevni zastoji spodbujajo gradnjo vedno novih, dodatnih cest. Mobilnost je hkrati življenjski slog in tudi problem sodobnega življenja mest.

Urbanizem in planiranje, predvsem planiranje mest, sta postala zelo nejasna pojma, ob katerih si vsak predstavlja kaj drugega. Vsi bi se morda strinjali, da je urejanje in načrtovanje prostora v krizi. Klasični urbanizem, ki je bil par arhitekture in ki deluje tako, da urbanist nekaj nariše, potem pa se to realizira, je postal neuporaben, z njim pa tudi njegovi postopki, kot so ukvarjanje s fizičnimi komponentami v prostoru, iskanje kompozicije, osi, torej načrtovanje, katerega cilj je neko dokončno urejeno stanje v prostoru. Štejejo popolnoma druge stvari.

Mesto je postalo organizirajoče polje sil, ki so neprestano v gibanju. Vsako mesto je specifična kombinacija sil, ki jih predstavljajo z ene strani akumulirajoče in presihajoče zgodovinske danosti, z druge pa dinamika sedanjosti. Mesto torej ni predvsem fizična forma, in v tem tiči glavni problem sodobnega urbanizma. Arhitekti smo tradicionalno navezani na svojo disciplino in fizični prostor, zato so naše strategije velikokrat podobne vpreganju voza pred konja. Klasični disciplini arhitektura in urbanizem nista več uspešni pri razumevanju, načrtovanju in kontroli urbaniziranega prostora in vedenja ljudi, ki ga uporabljajo.

Sodobne transformacije mest so izjemno obsežne in globoke, pa vendar so pri njihovi kartografiji uspešnejši literarni, fotografski ali filmski žanri kot pa tradicionalna urbana analiza, ki naj bi temeljila na znanstvenih predpostavkah. Mesto je danes proces, ne pa zaprta in dokončana oblika.

Mobilnost je bistvo organizacije sodobnega mesta. Prestopanje potnikov med različnimi tipi prometa, s postaje na tramvaj, z letališča na vlak, iz nakupovalnega središča do mestnega, od parkirišča do gledališča, je postalo primarno vprašanje mestnega urejanja in politike. Ne gre za izoliran problem prometa, pač pa za generalni koncept mesta.

Infrastrukture

V arhitekturi in urbanizmu je mobilnost tesno povezana z infrastrukturami. Infrastrukture so v sodobnem času najbolj ekspanzivne strukture, ki se umeščajo v prostor. Zato so tudi najbolj značilen izraz modernosti. Pejsaži avtocest, območja industrije, jezovi umetnih jezer, viadukti in predori določajo podobo pokrajine. Režejo doline, prebijajo gore, zasipavajo vrtače, preskakujejo reke in kanjone; proizvajajo rane v naravno površje, vegetacijo, kopljejo v zemljino nedrje - s prepletanjem koridorjev, mrež in omrežij, cest in železnic, žičnic, daljnovodov, rudnikov, kamnolomov, reguliranih voda, zajezitev, letališč, smetišč in čistilnih naprav.

Za sodobni pejsaž je značilna hibridizacija. Meje med mestom in podeželjem ni več. Podeželje je povsod, prav tako mesto. Fragmenti narave se prepletajo s fragmenti urbanosti v nov urbano-naravni pejsaž. Mesto se je razširilo prek svojih meja, sestavljajo ga vasi, urbani centri in subcentri, predmestja, industrijska območja, sive cone, letališča, gozdovi, jezera, obrežja in monokulture tehnološkega kmetijstva. Mobilnost omogoča ljudem, da se prosto gibljejo po tej urbani krajini. Človek ni več žrtev, postane svoboden uporabnik tega metropolitanskega mesta, ki sega do vikenda v Kranjski gori ali ob Krki, hiše staršev v Celju, ribje restavracije na Krasu itd. Urbani prebivalec je dobro opremljen individuum, ki je nagnjen k raziskovanju, ekstremno mobilen, drži stvari trdno v rokah. Neprestano menjava okolje in življenjski slog, zabava se zdaj v fitnesu, zdaj na italijanskem smučišču, zdaj spet na koncertu na Dunaju. Imamo novo urbano podeželje, ki je vse bolj vključeno v globalno ekonomijo, z industrializiranim kmetijstvom in naselji individualnih hiš, ki jih z mesti povezujejo avtoceste. Predvsem pa imamo mobilnost vsevprek.

Čeprav ima mobilnost v našem življenju vedno večjo vlogo in skladno s tem zavzemajo njej namenjene infrastrukture vse večji del prostora, je običajna percepcija tega fenomena skrajno poenostavljena in abstrahirana. Za večino je umestitev infrastrukture zgolj tehnični in organizacijski problem, morda še ekološki, ne pa tudi oblikovni. Vizualnoestetska perspektiva je potlačena, enako tudi urbani potencial. Ljudje so zadovoljni s simbolno upodobitvijo hitrosti, črtami na asfaltu, prometno signalizacijo. Tudi če na abstraktni ravni zagovarjamo ohranitev narave, se ne moremo odreči drvenju (ali stanju) po avtocestah, obvoznicah, hitrih in navadnih cestah. Drvimo skozi virtualno, ne pa tudi realno okolje... dokler ne zaslišimo zloveščega zavijanja siren rešilca ali policije.

Za načrtovanje prostora pasivni odnos do predmeta načrtovanja - mesta, podeželja, infrastruktur - ne zadostuje. Urbanizem mora postati proces, ne pa izdelovanje planov. Njegov cilj je vzpostaviti okoliščine, strukturne pogoje, v katerih se lahko uresničujejo zastavljeni cilji. Biti mora interdisciplinaren, še boljše, transdisciplinaren. Združevati mora politiko, kulturo, posel, biti mora tehnologija obvladovanja tokov v prostoru, ne samo fizičnih tokov, ampak tudi informacijskih, kapitalskih, socialnih itd. Uspešen je lahko le hibridni, dogovorni urbanizem, ki svojo doktrino, cilje in metode vedno znova definira in kalibrira, ki zna biti skromen in potrpežljiv, ki se ukvarja z omejenimi posegi, strateškimi prerazporeditvami, kompromisi, ki preusmerja in prerazdeljuje, začne vedno znova na začetku in nikoli ne teži k popolnemu nadzoru.

Miha Dešman

editorial

Mobility

In the 1933 Charter of Athens transport (mobility) is defined as one of the four primary urban functions, along with residence, work and entertainment. Surely this defining process represented a recognition of the importance of mobility. Mobility itself, however, still remained within the domain of transport experts who defined its core elements, their applicability, infrastructure and location. In many places, this situation remains unchanged. With the criticism of CIAM in the 1950's, the notion of mobility was radically modified. In the famous painting by Luis Kahn, movement was declared the central urban theme. From then on, the role of mobility in our everyday life and environment has constantly been gaining in importance.

Mobility has become a fact, reaching into every sphere of our lives.

It has taken increasingly more space, both in terms of the time we spend in transit, in cars, on planes and on trains; and in terms of real, physical space. In the urban sense, mobility creates chaos. The suburbanisation that stems from it has propelled the town into the periphery. Bottle-necks, an everyday occurrence, are offered up as the argument for the construction of ever more new roads. Mobility is simultaneously both a lifestyle and a problem of contemporary urban life.

Urbanism and planning, particularly town planning, have become blurred notions. Anybody may offer a different definition. Perhaps the only point of consensus would be that urban and spatial planning are facing a crisis. Traditional urbanism, which used to walk hand-in-hand with architecture, where the urban planner created a design which was subsequently realised, became useless, and with it, procedures such as dealing with physical components of space; searching for the composition, the axis, i.e. planning which aims to create some sort of a finite arrangement in space. Today, other things count.

The town has become an organising field of forces in constant movement. Each town is a specific combination of such forces, represented on the one hand by the accumulating or disappearing historical material, and on the other, by the dynamics of the present. The town is therefore not chiefly a physical form, and this is where the main problem of contemporary urbanism lies. Architects have long been bound to our branch and the physical space by tradition - that is why our strategies are often similar to having the horse harnessed behind the carriage. Traditional architecture and urbanism, as classical disciplines, no longer succeed in understanding, planning and supervising the urban space and the behaviour of people using this space. Contemporary transformations of cities are comprehensive and far-reaching, yet they are being chartered more successfully by literary, photographic and film genres, rather than the traditional urban analysis, supposedly based on scientific facts. Today, the town is a process - not a closed or finite form. Mobility is the essence of organisation of a contemporary town. Changing means of transport, going from the station to the tram, leaving the plane and catching the train, going from the shopping centre to the town centre, from the parking lot to the theatre - this has become the primary question of urban planning and policies. This is not an isolated problem of traffic; it is the general concept of town.

Infrastructure

In architecture and urbanism, mobility is closely linked to infrastructures. Infrastructures have been the most expansive structures recently imposed over space. That is why they are also the most typical expression of modernity. The motorway landscape, the industrial zone, dams on accumulation lakes, viaducts and tunnels shape the image of a landscape. They cut through the valleys, thrust through the mountains, fill in the natural sink-holes, overcome rivers and canyons. They make wounds in the natural landscape, vegetation, digging into the earthŐs breast with intertwined corridors, networks, roads, railways, ski-lifts, power cables, mines, stone-pits, regulated waters, dams, airports, dumping sites and waste-water treatment plants.

Typical for a contemporary landscape is hybridisation. The line between the urban and the rural has disappeared. Rural areas are everywhere, and so is the town. Fragments of nature intertwine with fragments of urbanity into a new urban-land-scape. The town has spread beyond its limits, it is now composed of villages, urban centres and sub-centres, suburbia, industrial areas, grey zones, airports, forests, lakes, river banks and monocultural technological agriculture. Mobility enables people to move freely through this urban landscape. Man is no longer a victim, but a free user of this metropolitan city, reaching from a weekend house in Kranjska Gora or along the Krka river, to the parentsŐ house in Celje, a seafood restaurant in Karst, etc. The urban inhabitant is a well-equipped individual, prone to exploration, extremely mobile, holding things firmly in his hands. He constantly changes the environment and lifestyle - from the fitness centre to skiing in Italy and taking in a concert in Vienna. We have a new urban rural area, which is being increasingly incorporated into the global economy through industrialised agriculture and residential estates of single-family houses, connected with towns through motorways. But above all - mobility wherever you look.

Despite the growing importance of mobility in our lives, and the growing amount of space given to infrastructures for the purposes of mobility, the usual perception of this phenomenon is utterly simplistic and generalised. For the majority of people, the location of infrastructure is merely a technical and organisational problem, perhaps ecological, but never an aesthetic one. The visual-aesthetic component is being completely neglected. The same goes for urban potential. People are happy with the symbolic imaging of speed, with the white stripes on the asphalt, with traffic signs. Even when supporting nature preservation on the abstract level, people cannot give up driving (or being caught in congestion) at high speeds on motorways, ring roads, expressways and regional roads. We rush through the virtual, not the real environment - right up, that is, until we hear the sinister howl of the ambulance or police car.

Urbanism and planning

For spatial developers a passive attitude to the object of planning - a town, a rural area, infrastructure - is not enough. Classical tools, as mentioned above, do not produce satisfactory results. The vision of the world can no longer be deduced in or reduced to one single model, such as perspective. A new, different understanding is needed, and a new project practice.

One could ask what multi-disciplinary instruments can be developed through innovative strategies oriented towards the future. Typological and morphological models from the 1980Ős have become useless. New thinking models have to be developed, able to encompass the complexity of time and space. Contemporary urbanism needs to take into account this complexity, multi-layerdness, these processes, etc. Apart from the physical layer, it must also consider other layers - the economic, communication, social and psychological layers. Urbanism needs to become a process, not merely the designing of plans. Its aim should be to create circumstances, structural conditions within which a certain set of goals can be achieved. It needs to be interdisciplinary, or better still, trans-disciplinary. Combining politics, culture, business, acting as a technology of mastering spatial flow. And not only physical flows, but information, capital, social flows as well. Urbanism can only be successful as a hybrid, consensual urbanism, constantly redefining and calibrating its doctrine, its goals and methods; one that knows how to be modest and patient, one that deals with limited interventions, strategic rearrangements, compromises, redirecting and rearranging, restarting from zero and never striving for complete control.

Miha Dešman