|
Masters' master plans from the archives
The academic literature on the history of modern urban design is
increas-ingly vast and constantly covers new fields and new problems.
At the same time, the choice of projects and personalities studied
seems paradoxically to be narrowing to a relatively small selection
of examples.
Although the theoretical and methodological perspectives can differ
radically, it is problematic that a particular group of objects
of inquiry seems to have been determined, to the exclusion of others.
Why is a canon, fixed in an earlier historical period and for other
purposes, silently being accepted, allowing only a discussion of
their interpretation ?
The first problem is not to propose another canon but rather to
understand the reasons behind the consensus on this selection and,
more importantly, the reasons for ignoring other examples and personalities.
This column suggests that some choices were casual, due originally
to a lack of documentation that was never subsequently revisited.
Filling this gap seems particularly crucial in the case of some
of the most important theoreticians, such as Camillo Sitte, Patrick
Geddes, Walter Gropius, Ernst May, Unwin and Parker and even Le
Corbusier. Their writings are well known and thoroughly examined.
Not so their professional work as practitioners, which could and
should add an "authentic" interpretation to some of their controversial
hypotheses, but which has been neglected as a potential source of
information.
Certainly the relevance of some ideas resides in how they were perceived
by followers as much as how they were intended by the authors, and
sometimes the quality of the writings overshadows that of the designed
work. In other cases, however, our ignorance of important examples
is largely due to the increasing specialization of scholars, educated
to research theories or plans, but seldom both. Problems of copyright,
of accessibility, of financing, etc. also play a role.
At any rate it is time to study the professional practice of some
of the most prominent urban designers of the modern era, to publish
scarcely known materials and to use them for a clearer understanding
of the theoretical writings.
This approach has proved very fruitful for example in the work of
Camillo Sitte. Easily accessible in the archives, it demonstrates
how, when confronted with a real problem, he adopted flexible and
innovative schemes that often diverged from his famous published
models and from the current practice of his academic followers.
His projects at Olmütz, Marienberg and along the North Sea are revealing
examples.
Likewise the writings of Patrick Geddes are considered to be among
the most influential and seminal in modern urban design history.
Although some of his work in Scotland and India has been published,
his plans for sites in Israel, especially Tel Aviv, are almost entirely
unknown. The Tel Aviv work shows a fresh and highly innovative conception
of the garden city schemes in a new context.
Walter Gropius' housing complexes are well known. Not so his activity
in Hagen, in the Ruhr Valley, where some drawings show the ways
he attended to vistas, site layouts and landscape use, which contrast
significantly with his later work.
The plans and projects of Ernst May in Germany need no further documentation
but his activities in the USSR and in Africa are poorly studied.
The same applies to important designs for Siedlungen by members
of the Werkbund created during the Nazi years, and ignored since
then for political reasons.
Le Corbusier's last plan for Algiers dated 1941 as well as other
less important projects also remain unpublished and show an interesting
evolution , both technical and political. (The plan was approved
and countersigned in Vichy) Materials on the first phase of the
planning of Chandigarh are available, but seem nonetheless to remain
little known to a wider audience in the field.
While the lecturature on Parker and Unwin in Letchworth and Welwin
is conspicuous, the plans of their office for many realized gardens
cities near Sao Paulo do Brasil are almost unknown.
The relevance of Theodor Fischer, Stübben and Baumeister as founders
of urban design as an academic discipline is beyond question, but
far less known are the actual projects upon which their theoretical
writings are predicated. According to my research, similar conditions
appear to apply in the United States as well. A study of the connection
between the writings and the professional practice of Werner Hegemann,
Lewis Mumford and Clarence Stein appears to lead to interesting
results. The work is in progress: I'm sure that other important
example will be presented in "Planum" in the incoming issues.
|
