Saltar para menu de navegação principal Saltar para conteúdo principal Saltar para rodapé do site
scopio Magazine Architecture, Art and Image

PAISAGENS DE CUIDADO | Editor Maria Neto

Vol. 1 N.º 1 (2023): scopio Magazine AAI-Utopia

Sense of place: How should we think about urban planning practices today?

  • Inês Osório

##plugins.themes.immersion.article.figure##

Resumo

Considering the recent socio-technological, psychosocial, political, and economic developments, will the urban planning practices (in the systemic sense of its exercise) be able to adapt to a growing, changing urban culture? Noting the diverse variety of contemporary spatial practices in which methods, concepts, and discourses tend to be sealed off from one another, this reflection calls for a reevaluation of the plurality dimensions and layers in the construction of the urban reality, questioning in this process, the predictable hegemony regarding the supremacy of Architecture in shaping modern and current urban imagery. This essay seeks to foster a reflection on new contemporary paradigms of Western urban life, tracing a retrospective view that allows us to look systemically at what we have built. In this process, the aim is to stimulate a future collision path, a conceptual and operational dialogue between the creative disciplines of Architecture and Contemporary Art on the current urbanization courses, proposing this possible relationship as an inseparable disciplinary set in the process of producing public space and urban territory. Putting forth the hypothesis of reassessing the established models of contemporary urban planning, the goal is to explore the possible operationality of the bauhausian canon in its historical disciplinary triad (architecture/art/design) while, in a process of symbiotic interaction, considering them as complementary tools in urban design concept, promoting a pluralistic and expanded dialogue between the processes of designing, requalifying, and resignifying the future places.

Cover image: “Plaza de los Fueros”, Vitoria-Gasteiz. Designed in 1979 by Eduardo Chillida and Luis Peña Ganchegui

Referências

  1. Adorno, Theodor. Teoria Estética. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1970. Asthetische Theorie, Suhrkamp-Verlag Frankfurt am Main, 1970.
  2. Arnaiz, Ana, and Iskandar Rementeria. “Saber De Escultor Entre El Arte Y La Ciudad.” Art&Sensorium – Revista
  3. Interdisciplinar Internacional de Artes Visuais da UNESPAR/EMBAP 1, no. 01 (2014): 153-71.
  4. Augé, Marc. Não-Lugares: Introdução a Uma Antropologia Da Supermodernidade. Papirus Editora, 1994. 1st Ed. Non-lieux.
  5. Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité, Seuil: La Librairie du XXe siècle, 1992.
  6. Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.
  7. Berger, Guy. “Conditions D’une Problématique De L’interdisciplinarité.” L’Interdisciplinarité: problèmes denseignement et de
  8. recherche dans les Université (1972): 21-24. Paris: UNESCO/OCDE.
  9. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. Organismic Psychology and Systems Theory. Heinz Werner lectures ed. Worcester: Clark
  10. University Press, 1966.
  11. Boudon, Philippe. Echelle(S): L’architecturologie Comme Travail D’épistémologue. Paris: Anthropos, 2002.
  12. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Habitus and Field: General Sociology (P. Collier, Trans.; Vol. 2).” In Lectures at College de France
  13. (1982.1983), Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020.
  14. Carmona, Matthew. “The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process.” Journal of Urban Design 19, no. 1
  15. (2014): 2-36.
  16. Castellani, Brian, and Frederic William Hafferty. Sociology and Complexity Science: A New Field of Inquiry. Springer Science
  17. & Business Media, 2009.
  18. Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society Cambridge, Mass, 1996.
  19. Certeau, Michel. “L’invention Du Quotidien.” In Les Arts de Faire. Paris: Gallimard/Folio Essai, 1980.
  20. Corboz, André. “El Territorio Como Palimpsesto.” In Lo Urbano En 20 Autores Contemporáneos, 25-34: Univ. Politèc. de
  21. Catalunya, 2004.
  22. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Mil Platôs, Vol. 1: Capitalismo E Esquizofrenia. Edited by São Paulo: Editora 34. 1995.
  23. Durkheim, Emile. Las Reglas Del Método Sociológico. Vol. 86: Ediciones Akal, 1985.
  24. Giedion, Sigfried. Architecture, You and Me: The Diary of a Development. Harvard University Press, 1958.
  25. Innerarity, Daniel. O Novo Espaço Público: Que Significado Pode Ter Hoje Uma Cultura Pública Comum. Editorial Teorema, Sa.
  26. Jacobs, Jane. “The Death and Life of Great American Cities (London: Jonathon Cope).” Kalati, N. and Manor, J.(1999),‘Elite
  27. Perceptions of Poverty: South Africa’, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 30, no. 2 (1961): 117-26.
  28. Krauss, Rosalind. “Sculpture in the Expanded Field.” October Magazine 8 (1979): 31-44.
  29. Kruger, Linda E, and Daniel R Williams. “Place and Place-Based Planning.” United States Department of Agriculture Forest
  30. Service General Technical Report PNW 698 (2007): 83.
  31. Kwon, Miwon. “One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity.” October 80 (1997): 85-110.
  32. Lande, Russell, and Stevan J Arnold. “The Measurement of Selection on Correlated Characters.” Evolution (1983): 1210-26.
  33. Lefebvre, Henri. “La Production De L’espace, Editions Anthropos.” Paris, 1974.
  34. Loos, Adolf. “Ornament and Crime.” Les Cahiers daujourdhui (1913). Original “Ornement et Crime”.
  35. McLoughlin, J Brian. “Urban and Regional Planning. A Systems Approach.” Urban and regional planning. A systems
  36. approach. (1969).
  37. Melo, Magda M. “Síntese Das Artes Na Arquitetura De Oscar Niemeyer.” Semina: Ciências Sociais e Humanas 24, no. 1
  38. (2003): 121-30
  39. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Phénoménologie De La Perception.” Paris: Gallimard, 1945.
  40. Mongin, Olivier. La Condition Urbaine. La Ville À L’heure De La Mondialisation. Paris, Éditions Seuil, 2005.
  41. Montgomery, John. “Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design.” Journal of urban design 3, no. 1 (1998): 93-116.
  42. Morin, Edgar. “Edgar. Introduction À La Pensée Complexe.” Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1990.
  43. Mouffe, Chantal. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. Verso Books, 2013.
  44. ———. “Which Public Space for Critical Artistic Practices.” Cork Caucus 2005 (2005): 149-71.
  45. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Existence, Space and Architecture. London: Praeger Publishers, 1971.
  46. Palmade, Guy. “Interdisciplinariedad E Ideologías.” (1979).
  47. Piaget, Jean. “Epistemologie Des Rélations Interdisciplinaires.” Ed. l’interdisciplinarité. Problemes d’enseignement et
  48. recherche dans les université (1972).
  49. Punter, John. “Participation in the Design of Urban Space.” Journal Landscape design 200, no. 1 (1991): 24-27.
  50. Rancière, Jacques. La Partage Du Sensible: Esthétique Et Politique. La fabrique éditions, 2000.
  51. Rendell, Jane. Art and Architecture: A Place Between. IB Tauris London, 2006.
  52. Rogers, Ben. “In Defence of the Realm: 10 Principles for Public Space.” Making good–shaping places for people (2017).
  53. Simon, Herbert. The Scientific Artificial. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1981.
  54. Soja, Edward W. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso, 1989.
  55. Spencer, Herbert. “The Principles of Sociology “. New York: D Appleton and Company Vol. 3, part 7 (1896).
  56. Tuan, Yi-Fu. “Place: An Experiential Perspective.” Geographical Review (1975): 151-65.
  57. Vidler, Anthony. “Architecture’s Expanded Field.” Journal Artforum 42, no. 8 (2004): 142-47.
  58. Wagner, Richard. Religion and Art. Vol. 6: Reprint Services Corporation, 1897.
  59. Weaver, Warren. “Science and Complexity.” American scientist 36, no. 4 (1948): 536-44.