• • Part of the book series (GEJL, volume 60) Abstract Hong Kong’s urban areas concentrate mainly in two places: the triangular tip of Kowloon Peninsula, and a thin coastal strip on the northern side of Hong Kong Island (Figure 1). 1 According to the 1997 and 1998 annual reports of the World Bank, Hong Kong has entered the rank of the top 15 countries or areas in GNP per capita. However, each Hong Kong resident has only 1.5 square meters of public space for recreation. Singapore has a similar population density and economic performance, but its recreational space is three times larger than that of Hong Kong. Dense Asian cities like Tokyo and Taipei all exceed Hong Kong in this regard. Mainland China’s GNP per capita is only 1/35th of Hong Kong’s, but Guangzhou, the largest city in southern China and only a two-hour train ride from Hong Kong, has 3 square meters of recreational space for each of its residents. Pu Miao, “Chuantong De Benzhi — Zhongguo Chuantong Jianzhu De Shisan Ge Tedian” (The Essence of Tradition — Thirteen Characteristics of Chinese Traditional Architecture), The Architect,Nos. 36 and 40, 1989 and Journal of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University (Taipei), Vol. 1, 1990; Dai-heng Guo, “Zhongguo Chuantong Jianzhu De Wenhua Tezheng” (Cultural Characteristics of Traditional Chinese Architecture), in Tsinghua Daxue Jianzhu Chongshu, Juanzhu Lishi Juan (Architectural Book Series of Qinghua University: Volume of Historical Research) (Beijing: China Building Industry Press, 1996); Charlie Q.L. Xue, “Zhongguo Chuantong Jianzhu De Xianzheng Xing” (The Symbolism of Traditional Chinese Architecture), The Architect,No. 38, 1990, pp. One of Sitte’s foremost concerns is the placement of monuments. Today, features like statues, sculptures, fountains, and obelisks may seem mere afterthoughts to core questions of urban planning. For Sitte, who considered the fine art of planning to extend down to the precise details of every urban space, such a presumption about ornament could not be more wrong. In his approach, the decision as to where a monument would be placed was as important as the choice of the object itself. He laments a tendency (which has continued) to select points along geometric axes as locations—especially when such points lie in the center of large open spaces, where the visual impact of any object will be diminished by its distance from observers and the dimensions of the surrounding space. Throughout his writing, Sitte returns to a deep distrust for the technician’s affinity for regular shapes, and for decisions that look tidy on a draftsman’s plan. Instead, he provides compelling evidence that a more sophisticated approach to site planning allows for frequent departures from the tyranny of right angles and rigid proportions. A replica of David in the location selected by Michelangelo (Wikimedia Commons) Sitte argues that the historically and artistically correct practice is to situate monuments—especially sculptures—to the side of primary thoroughfares, often near the entries of buildings. This is a way of contextualizing their presence with the other physical details of the built environment. It also ensures that the largest proportion of passers-by will experience them close up. Among many fine examples, he offers two intriguing instances of the placement of public sculptures by Renaissance masters in Italian cities to illustrate the artistic component of site selection. First, he looks at the original site of Michelangelo’s David, in Florence: This gigantic marble statue stands close to the walls of the Palazzo Vecchio, to the left of its principal entrance, in the exact place chosen by Michelangelo. The idea of erecting a statue on this place of ordinary appearance would have appeared to moderns absurd if not insane. Michelangelo chose it, however, and without doubt deliberately; for all those who have seen the masterpiece in this place testify to the extraordinary impression that it makes. In contrast to the relative scantiness of the place, affording an easy comparison with human stature, the enormous statue seems to swell even beyond its actual dimensions. The sombre and uniform, but powerful, walls of the palace provide a background on which we could not wish to improve to make all the lines of the figure stand out. Camillo Sitte Turbine Square![]() ![]() Camillo Sitte City PlanningSitte notes caustically that David has since been moved into a gallery—an “art prison that we call a museum”—where it is severed from the enriching urban and architectural contexts that Michelangelo had wisely selected. (The original remains indoors today, at the Galleria dell’Accademia di Firenze; a full-sized replica now stands on the site chosen by Michelangelo.) Building on his use of fine art to illustrate his principles of placemaking, Sitte also examines the siting of Padua’s Equestrian Statue of Gattamelata, a large bronze sculpture by Donatello located to one side of a piazza and vast basilica, rather than on a central axis: [W]e may be astonished by its great variance from our rigid modern system, but it is quickly and strikingly seen that the monument in this place produces a majestic effect. Finally we become convinced that removed to the center of the square its effect would be diminished. We cease to wonder at its orientation and other locational advantages once this principle becomes familiar. He further explains the traditional placement of monuments at the edges of busy spaces by using an analogy between finished public squares and the furnished rooms of private houses. Today, as we have for centuries, we tend to place art around the perimeters of indoor rooms. Sitte’s sketch of Piazza Erbe, Verona (Diagram from The Art of Building Cities on Internet Archive) To illustrate the value of irregularity, Sitte offers an example from Verona.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2019
Categories |