Influence of “Urban Reagents.” German and Russian Case Studies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TRANSFORMATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT: INFLUENCE OF “URBAN REAGENTS.” GERMAN AND RUSSIAN CASE STUDIES Reshetnikova Tatiana Sergeevna Transformation of the Environment: Influence of “Urban Reagents.” German and Russian Case Studies Dissertation to conferral of the academic degree Doctor of Engineering (Dr.-Ing.) at the Faculty of Architecture of the Bauhaus University Weimar submitted by Reshetnikova Tatiana Sergeevna M.Design, Diploma in “Design” Date of birth 29\11\1984 Weimar, 2020 Supervisor Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Frank Eckardt Reviewers Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Frank Eckardt Prof. Vitaly Stadnikov (PhD) Date of the disputation: 22.01.2021 Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5 1.1. What is an “Urban Reagent” ......................................................................................... 17 1.2. “Urban Reagent” Parameters and Factual Data ........................................................... 41 Chapter 2. Influence of an “Urban Reagent” as a Tool for an Experiment .............................. 49 2.1. Historical Influence ....................................................................................................... 50 2.2. Socio-cultural Influence ................................................................................................ 78 2.3. Urban Influence ............................................................................................................ 92 2.4. Economic Influence ..................................................................................................... 116 Chapter 3. “Urban Reagent” as an Experiment Itself ........................................................... 131 3.1. Authorship Experiment ............................................................................................... 132 3.2. Architectonic Experiment ........................................................................................... 156 Chapter 4. Synthetic Experiments: German and Russian “Urban Reagents” ......................... 183 4.1. Selected German and Russian URs ............................................................................. 183 4.2. Infrastructural Synthetic Experiment .......................................................................... 186 4.3. Cultural Synthetic Experiment .................................................................................... 193 4.4. Commercial Synthetic Experiment .............................................................................. 208 4.5. Urban Information Design .......................................................................................... 217 Chapter 5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 221 Synopsis .................................................................................................................................. 221 List of Effects .......................................................................................................................... 224 Final Images ............................................................................................................................ 226 Research Implications ............................................................................................................. 226 Areas of potential further research ........................................................................................ 226 Tables …. ............................................................................................................................ 227 Figures … ............................................................................................................................ 228 Interview ............................................................................................................................ 228 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 229 Bibliography........................................................................................................................ 231 CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................................ 253 3 This page is intentionally left blank Chapter 1.Introduction An urban regeneration manifests itself through urban objects operating as change agents. The en- tailed diverse effects on the surroundings demonstrate experimental origin - an experiment as a pre- planned but unpredictable method. An understanding of influences and features of urban objects requires scrutiny due to a high potential of the elements to force an alteration and reactions. This dissertation explores the transformation of the milieu and mechanisms of this transformation. Thesis Statement The urban fabric is composed of paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks, urban planner Kevin Lynch (2005) distinguishes. The nodes and landmarks, or radical urban objects, condense influential qualities. Urban transformation, or regeneration, expresses itself by these strategic objects serving as urban triggers. An urban flagship, catalyst, invader, a singular, iconic and grand building, a wonder, and masterpiece – only a part of names of this special, super urban element generating cardinal changes in different environments. A noticeable impact is a primary attribute of the activity of this urban object. I define this phenomenon as an “Urban Reagent” (UR) – an object working as a reagent in the milieu – and aim to show in which experiments it acts and what effects it generates. What results does the phenomenon produce? Implanting a UR, for instance, a building, renders irreversible changes, inducing an “explosion” or “graduality” as historian Yuri Lotman (2000, 17) terms two contrasting ways of historical and cultural development, two ways of the newness emergence. Customers order and confirm, and architects conceive an agreeable or risky and unexamined architecture, assuming the liability of a possible fail- ure, high-cost implication, public misunderstanding, disregard of local interests, and other possible negative aspects. Simultaneously, there is a range of points why it is worth building a UR - a valuable contribution or investment to the location and identity, a catalyst and turning point for urban, eco- nomical, and socio-cultural development, a powerful instrument for changes, evolution, or revolu- tion. An experiment of design, realization, and implantation of a UR generates intended and random, positive, negative, and null effects, - influencing multiple environments. What are the modern examples of the phenomenon? Each time creates its experiments planned to mount new values and produce a certain influence. Since the 1960s, the postindustrial era, information society, stylistic freedom of postmodernism, technological inventions, further urbanization, globalization, and global corporations have been or- dering new avant-garde architecture with the task of an accelerated urban regeneration and inter- nationalization, global market, tourism, and modernity representation. For instance, big projects of 5 German IBA and French “Grand Projects” aimed at a complex and qualitative change (Ikonnikov 2002, 2:304). The 60s striking Sydney Opera House, the 70s amazing Pompidou Centre, and the 90s iconic Guggenheim Bilbao Museoa – only a few examples of the phenomenon meaning an international significance, changes in urban, economic, and socio-cultural environments. Stimulated by the time possibilities and architectural blasts, today, global iconic trend works within the defined formula of making and using authored by a ‘starchitect’ (a celebrity and cosmopolitan) extravagant architecture, which often violates the surroundings. “The undoubted uniqueness of these architects and their pro- jects is determined, paradoxically, by their omnipresence,” Dutch architectural historian Hans Ibel- ings (2014, 203) states. Why is it important to study this phenomenon? “Even one building can make a difference to a city,” Jørn Utzon once said (1959, cited in Carter 2003, 66). Modern governments, private agents, and private-state partnerships actively implement URs as flagships of in-fill city reconstructions or complex, large-scale redevelopment programs, so-called megaprojects, containing an iconic component. In this accelerating situation, consideration of effects and after-effects of building expensive, energy-, time- and labor-consuming, experimental and con- troversial objects is a critical task. A UR is able to influence cities’ redefinition, often painful and in- ducing an answering wave (e.g., social protests, gentrification …). How does the phenomenon take shape? Cities embracing culture, society, economy, buildings, and aesthetics are in a constant transformation led by never-ending experimentation. Both ill- and well-being requires changes – on the one hand - towards recovery, and on the other – towards further development. Ruins, revolutions, under- and overproduction, dissolution of cultural identity, decline, – crises of different scales motivate a formu- lation of transformation strategies and maximize experimentation to solve unprecedented problems and to obtain intended effects - desired results. For an extraordinary task, a unique instrument is required to be invented and activated to cause a reaction – a special active component, or a reagent. A reagent can