krajinska arhitektura - krajinski urbanizem

Številka, ki je pred vami, odpira razpravo o nekaterih drugačnih razmerjih med arhitekturo in krajino, kakršna se vidijo iz novega načina gledanja na mesto, usmerjenega od zunaj navznoter, to je od praznega h grajenemu, iz odprtega k zaprtemu prostoru. Iz tega pogleda stopa v ospredje krajina kot nov prostor ter način za uravnavanje mesta in priložnost za njegovo preobrazbo.

Z neustavljivim gibanjem urbanizacije navzven proti robovom in razprševanjem poselitve v okolico nastaja fragmentirana in neosrediščena struktura v značilnem vzorcu na mreži različno razporejenih razredčin in zgostitev, kjer se začasno vzpostavljene hierarhije in težišča nenehno premikajo. Prilagodljiva omrežja so sposobna različnih organizacij in raznovrstnih konfiguracij med seboj tudi povsem neskladnih elementov v prostoru.

Vsesplošne zakonitosti sodobne urbanizacije terjajo celo vrsto novih opredelitev in drugačnih razlag mesta, ki postaja podobno brezoblični gmoti povezanih prostorov in prekinitev, brez prepoznavnega reda ter razvidnega sosledja meril in členitev. Sodobno mesto je različno sestavljen prostor v več plasteh, ki so zložene različno gosto: tam, kjer je prostor najbolj zgoščen in urejen, se pokažejo tudi členitve v mestu kot lokalne praznine oziroma ločine v mestni krajini. Sodobno mesto je tudi celostnost vsakršnih tokov v polju delujočih sil.

Nastaja aditivno, od spodaj navzgor, tako da razen omrežij nobena višja raven organizacije prostora ni vnaprej podana naenkrat. Celoto sestavlja nepregledna serija istovrstnih situacij, ki se ponavljajo preko različnih meril prostora na način vzpostavljanja manjših vzorcev v večjem vzorcu. Takšna celična struktura se razvija in uravnava z lokalnimi uskladitvami med obstoječim in novimi deli v posameznem polju. Celovitost strukture odrejajo razmerja med sosednjimi arhitekturnimi objekti v posameznih poljih, ki so do svoje okolice avtonomni. Polja so kombinirane enote mesta, ki povezujejo arhitekturo in krajino ter zagotavljajo prisotnost raznih meril. Razmerja med polji se vzpostavljajo neposredno in enakopravno.

Sodobno mesto je nehierarhično in raznovrstno. Razvija se v prostran in brezkončen, celično izoblikovan prostor, kjer sta vedno bolj izenačena možnost dostopa do odprtega prostora in razpolaganje z njim. V nasprotju z zgodovinskim mestom sodobni demokratičen prostor ni več povezan in koherenten, v njem se odprti in grajeni prostori vedno bolj prežemajo. To prepletanje se prenaša tudi na arhitekturo, ki postaja večnamenska, hibridna struktura, brez strogih zamejitev med zunanjostjo in notranjostjo. Arhitektura je zgoščena krajina, ponotranjena in strnjena razširitev zunanjega prostora, ki ji pripada. Večznačna tipologija hibridnih stavb ni več ključ za enostavno prepoznavanje prostora. Podobno kot v grajenih strukturah, kjer poteka hkrati več dejavnosti, postaja hibridna tudi mestna krajina. Tako kot so meje med odprto krajino, podeželjem, predmestjem in mestom vse bolj zabrisane, je tudi vsaka mestna površina hkrati oboje; trg in vrt, ulica in park, cesta in krajina. Oblika sodobnega mesta postaja na ta način vedno bolj neusmerjen, nereferenčen labirint, ki se stalno spreminja, zaradi česar je prostor še bolj nepregleden in nerazločen. Tisto, kar je v demokratičnem prostoru stalno, so torej le spremembe, stalno novo prerazporejanje odnosov med deli, stalno neizoblikovana zgradba celote.

Sodobno mesto je razpršeno in odprto. Ko se razpršeno mesto širi v odprto krajino, se tudi krajina prenaša v mesto, vendar v razpršenem vzorcu večjih ali manjših fragmentov odprtega prostora. Pojav razpršenega mesta predpostavlja torej tudi razpršeno krajino. V procesu razprševanja in razsredinjenja se robovi med naseljenim in odprtim prostorom postopoma stapljajo in prekrivajo. Mesto prehaja v krajino brez prekinitev in ostrih meja in obratno. Zato lahko opredelimo sodobno mesto le še kot obliko zgostitve v premešanem krajinsko-urbanem kontinuumu, kjer so značilnosti, kot so centralnost, polarnost, prepletenost in zloženost različnih omrežij in dogodkov, najmočneje izražene. Sodobno mesto je torej le relativno in diskretno opredeljiva kategorija v prehajanju. Koncept krajine kot odprte in stalno spreminjajoče se nepredvidljive strukture povezuje vse nove definicije prostora, mesta in arhitekture v celoto vsenavzoče prisotnosti. Koncept krajine razlaga tudi strategijo urejanja mesta, po kateri prazen prostor povezuje grajene strukture v celoto tako, da je zagotovljena prepustnost tokov in stalno odprta možnost za nove ureditve. Mesto in krajina sta s tem enotno opredeljena kot neločljivi, v novem sožitju povezani entiteti. Objavljene razprave in še posebno predstavljeni projekti izhajajo iz teh opredelitev in na najbolj neposreden, inovativen način tudi utemeljujejo njihov dejavni smisel, ki vodi k eni od alternativnih oblik uravnavanja mesta, to je h krajinskemu urbanizmu.

Landscape Architecture - Landscape Urbanism

The present issue opens a discussion on certain relationships between architecture and landscape as seen from the new perception of town, directed from the outside towards the inside, that is from emptiness towards built-up, from open towards closed space. In this view, landscape is brought to the forefront of our attention as a new space and method of town arrangement, as well as a chance for its transformation. The forceful movement of urbanisation towards the periphery and dispersing of habitat in the environment create a fragment and uncentered densification, where temporary hierarchies and central points are being constantly shifted. Adaptable networks are capable of creating different organisations and different configurations of completely incompatible elements in space.

General laws of modern urbanisation demand a whole range of new definitions and different explanations of town which is becoming analogous to an amorphous mass of intertwined spaces and interruptions without any recognisable order or sequence of measures and fragmentation. The modern town is a space of various compositions in several layers with different density: where the density is the highest and the most arranged, the fragmentation in town appears as local emptiness or divisions in urban landscape. The modern town is a whole of different currents in the field of active forces.

It is created bottom-up in an additive way so that no higher level of spatial organisation, except of networks, is given simultaneously in advance. The whole is composed of an infinite number of situations of the same kind which repeat themselves through different measures of space by combining smaller patterns into a larger one. Such cellular structure is developed and managed by local arrangements between the new and existing parts within a particular field. The wholeness of structure is defined by relationships between the neighbouring architectural objects in different fields which are autonomous with regard to their surroundings. The fields are combined units of the town, which connect architecture and landscape, and ensure the presence of different measures. The relationships between the fields are established directly and on an equal basis.

The modern town is non-hierarchic and diverse. It develops into a large and infinite cellular space, where the possibility of accessing the open space and having it at one's disposal are constantly becoming closer. As opposed to the historic town, the modern democratic space is no longer connected and coherent. The open and built up spaces within it are merging into one another. This merge also applies to architecture, which is becoming a multi-purpose hybrid structure without strict limits between the exterior and the interior. Architecture is a condensed landscape, an interiorised and condensed enlargement of the exterior space to which it belongs. The typology of hybrid buildings with several meanings is no longer the key for a simple recognition of space. Similar to the built-up structures where several activities are taking place simultaneously, the urban landscape is becoming a hybrid as well. Just like the borders between the open landscape, the rural area, the suburb and the city are becoming unclear, each urban surface is at the same time a square and a garden, a street and a park, a road and a landscape. The form of the modern town is thus changing into an undirected, non-referential labyrinth which constantly changes causing even further lack of clarity in space. What is permanent in such democratic space are only changes, new rearrangements of relationships between different parts, a constantly amorphous construction of the whole.

The modern town is dispersed and open. When a dispersed town is spreading into an open landscape, the landscape itself can also enter the town, but in a dispersed pattern of greater or smaller fragments of open space. The phenomenon of dispersed town therefore presupposes a dispersed landscape. In the process of dispersion and decentralisation the borders between the populated and open space gradually merge and overlap. The town enters the landscape without any interruptions or tidy borders, and vice versa. This is why we can define modern town only as a form of densification in a mixed landscape- urban continuum, where such characteristics as centralisation, polarity, intertwining and complexity of different networks and events are the most evident. The modern town is therefore only a relatively and discreetly defined category in transition. The concept of landscape as an open and constantly changing unpredictable structure connects all new definitions of space, town and architecture in a whole of omnipresent existence. The concept of landscape also explains the strategy of urban arrangement following which the empty space connects the built-up structures in a whole so that it ensures the permeability of currents and a constantly open opportunity for new arrangements. Town and landscape are thus equally defined as inseparable entities connected in a new coexistence.

The articles published in this issue, and particularly in the presented projects, result from these definitions and confirm their sense in the most direct and innovative way. This sense leads towards one of the alternative forms of urbanism, i.e. towards landscape urbanism.