The phenomenon of spontaneity in urban city realm. Recognition, understanding and interpretations

Spontaneity is a term which has wide range of meanings and significations in an architectural and urban context. The meaning of the spontaneous in architecture is mostly recognized as the condition of material scarcity, urban disorder, poorness etc (MacDonald, 1978). Nevertheless, one cannot overlook the other significances related to this behaviour. In fact, even the carefully planned structures are subjects of transformations with regard to their arrangement, appearance, organization as well as their accommodation to the socio-political conditions, which can be interpreted as spontaneous performances. Therefore, there is an evident necessity to scientifically position the meaning, and to determine the significance of this phenomenon more precisely when it regards the architectural and urban realm. Due to the fact that the range of architectural spontaneities is very wide, and it involves a very large area of interest, this study focuses on the ‘spontaneous’ as a phenomenon appearing in the contemporary city. Therefore, the spontaneous phenomenon is recognized concerning various architectural and urban scales, from the one which involves the city metropolitan region to the scale of the small architectural units and the perceptual scope of the human. Hence, the recognition of spontaneity as an urban phenomenon can be divided in two sections. The first, which involves ‘informal’ architecture, meaning ‘not-legal’ architecture in the bureaucratic sense (Rao, 2010), or architecture developed without officially recognized project (Clemente, 2005) as nomad settlements, urban cracks, slums, etc. And the second, ‘formal’ architectural and urban phenomenon which can also be interpreted as spontaneous acts. This section involves the historical traces in the city fabric as unsigned architecture (Rudofsky, 1964), transformations emerging at the ‘formal’ units, and the latest phenomenon of placeless architecture (Gregotti, 1990) as a result of the contemporary urban complexity. Apart from the stereotype of the spontaneous as not-formal, there is a consideration of another stereotype of the spontaneous in architecture understood as the negation of the project or un-planned, un-regulated, etc. Thus, if by the spontaneous we mean unplanned birth or generation of the architectural constituents, then we have to observe the definitions and interpretations which regard the architectural project. Therefore, if we consider the project as a feature which previsions the form and function, the notion of the instability in this transformation (Gregotti, 1987) of the prevision to the prediction of reality underlines the aspects of the spontaneity present in the process of the project as well. On a large scale these aspects can be recognized in various historical phases of the city development. From the ancient routines of the formation of the cities which follow applicable rules accommodated to the particular context (Koolhaas, Boeri, Kwinter, Tazi, & Obrist, 2000), through the medieval city of defined and compact structure and neglected vague margins (Sennett, 2007), to the contemporary metropolitan area and its complexity (Secchi, 1991) due to the socio-economic and political circumstances (Harvey, 1990). In addition, very interesting aspects of spontaneity can be observed in the city models from the period of modern architecture. While the modernist considered that the modern architecture is a rupture in the classical historical timeline (Eisenman, 1984), the projects and the city models nevertheless continue the disregarded aspects of spontaneity, later rigorously debated by the postmodern critic. Therefore, here we recognize two exaggerated models. The first one, the utopian model which completely overlooks the spontaneity and propose a project as a ‘naked’ architectural idea, and the second which is a ‘stage’ composition (Habermas, 1982) as a designed or ‘fake’ spontaneity. The most significant overturn in the understanding of the spontaneous character of the city happen at the VIII CIAM, accordingly entitled “The Heart of the City”. Spontaneity is emphasized as a positive feature of the urban realm (Giedion, 1954), and contrary to the historical city today it characterizes not only the periphery but also the city core (Rogers, 1952). Therefore, carrying the urban historical genes, spontaneity represents the immeasurable dimension and inestimable value which portray each city. Finally, as a conclusion of the theoretical determination of spontaneities, we face the challenges of the development of the contemporary city and its spontaneous context. Hence, one of the most challenging subjects of the development of the contemporary city is the question of the development of its spontaneous fragments. If the ‘small scale projects’ mainly solve the infrastructural and technical necessities of such areas, they still appear as isolated urban islands condemned to their separate development detached from the city (Groth & Corijn, 2005). This study therefore proposes methodologies and principles which treat the development of the spontaneous areas and emphasize the importance of the involvement of different scales for the development and the design of those areas. In this sense, we can formulate the questions not dealing only with the necessities of the inhabitants of the spontaneous areas, but also the problems of the city related to this phenomenon. METHODOLOGY The thesis is structured in two general parts comprising the theoretical research regarding the phenomenon in question, and the case study projects as a verification of the proposed methodologies and principles for development of the spontaneous areas. The introduction chapter focuses on the definition of the term ‘spontaneity’. For that reason, it is necessary to take into consideration other sciences such as physics, sociology, literature and art, where this phenomenon has been more profoundly studied, in order to create correspondence with the architectural context of the phenomenon. Therefore, spontaneity at this point is defined as behaviour which is characterized by local instability, as a voluntary action of a particle, which has globally recognizable form. The next section deals with the recognition of the previously defined phenomenon, and thus outlines the limits of the research. Accordingly, the spontaneous processes in architecture are studied and recognized as figures which have certain recognizable characteristics (Conde & Magalhães, 2004). Two important figures emerge, one of the well-known ‘informal’ character recognized mostly by its scarce condition, and the other, more complex figures of the ‘formal’ character, which are recognized as ‘formalized informal’ or further as a complexity of voluntary ‘formal’ performances . Finally, in the subsequent section various interpretations of the spontaneous city are introduced, which however correspond with the argument of the thesis. Therefore, spontaneity is interpreted as a positive architectural feature which carries the genetic material of the settlement and contributes to the human character of the cities. Hence, spontaneity is considered to be an architectural value which can be used as a source and also as a tool to design. FINDINGS To respond to the challenge of the development of those areas and to recognize their potentials, there is a necessity to propose methodologies and principles suitable for such environments. Taking into consideration the theoretical study present in the first part, four principles for development of the spontaneous areas are presented, which build a background for the methodology which involves the ‘large’ urban scale. Therefore, if the methodologies of the small scale develop the spontaneous areas as urban islands inside the city fabric, the large scale methodology at this point performs a development of such areas together with the city as a whole. Thus, the zooming out method is presented as an approach which anticipates the understanding of the large scale context of the city, its morphology, historical development, the importance of its palimpsest layers, etc. The first principle of this method is represented by the reinforcement of the basic infrastructure of the settlement, which improves the typical scarce infrastructural condition of such areas, and furthermore offers possibilities to develop new technologies. The second principle involves creating new networks, as a performance which encompasses the area in the wider context of the city as well as within the neighbourhoods in the vicinity. The third principle, development of the margins deals with the issue of the morphological discontinuity of the margins of the spontaneous areas within the city. And finally, the forth principle highlights the importance of the innovative methods for the extension of the public and collective spaces, as a tool to create and develop new public spaces. Those principles are verified in four case study projects involving the city of Skopje, as their current condition coincides with the phenomenon previously defined as spontaneous fragments, or ‘bottom-up’ fabrics located in-between the ‘top-down’ structures. Apart from the fact that in each project those principles interlace, each of them has been emphasized in a separate case to point the particular idea. Therefore, the first area of ‘Novo maalo’ develops the street as a project, interpreting the figure of the street as a source for the development. The second area of ‘Madzir maalo’ emphasizes setting a new network of the ‘acupuncture’ points, developing not just the structural condition of the settlement, but also its performance considering the larger scale of the city. The third case of ‘Krnjevo’ is based on the hypothesis that development of the margin implies the development of the settlement. Therefore, the development of the settlement is achieved by taking over its margins, and by overtaking the lost relations within the urban realm. Finally, one of the larger city slums, the case of ‘Topaana’, emphasizes the idea of rethinking the public and private un-built spaces of a settlement. Thus, certain re-cycled space is considered to be a powerful resource for the development of the spontaneous settlements. REFERENCES Clemente, M. (2005). Estetica delle periferie urbane : analisi semantica dei linguaggi dell’architettura spontanea. Roma: Officina. Conde, L. P., & Magalhães, S. (2004). Favela-Bairro : rewriting the history of Rio. [Rio de Janeiro]: ViverCidades. Eisenman, P. (1984). The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the End. Perspecta, 21, 154-173. Giedion, S. (1954). Descrizione del cuore: sommario del’ottavo congresso del CIAM Il Cuore della città: per una vita più umana delle comunità, The heart of the city: towards the humanisation of urban life (pp. xii, 185 p.). Milano: Hoepli editore. Gregotti, V. (1987). Previsions, predictions. Casabella, 533. Gregotti, V. (1990). Atpoic typologies; Tipologie atopiche. Casabella, 568. Groth, J., & Corijn, E. (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42(3). Habermas, J. (1982). “Modern and postmodern architecture” (H. Tsoskounglou, Trans.) Rethinking architecture : a reader in cultural theory. London ; New York: Routledge. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity : an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell. Koolhaas, R., Boeri, S., Kwinter, S., Tazi, N., & Obrist, H.-U. (2000). Mutations : Harvard Project on the City., . Bordeaux, France: ACTAR ; Arc en reve centre d’architecture. MacDonald, L. (1978). Spontaneous Urban Settlements. Habitat Intl., 3(1/2). Rao, V. (2010). Slum as a theory. Lotus, 143. Rogers, E. N. (1952). Il Cuore: problema umano della città CIAM 8. Il cuore della città: per une vita più umana della comunità. Milano: Hoepli. Rudofsky, B. (1964). Architecture without architects, an introduction to nonpedigreed architecture. New York,: Museum of Modern Art; distributed by Doubleday, Garden City. Secchi, B. (1991). The peryphery. Casabella, 583. Sennett, R. (2007). Open City The endless city : the urban age project by the London School of Economics and Deutsche Bank’s Alfred Herrhausen Society. London: Phaidon.

La spontaneità è un termine che ha molteplici significati all'interno degli studi architettonici ed urbani. Il significato della spontaneità in architettura è più riconosciuto come una condizione di scarsità, disordine urbano, povertà ecc (MacDonald, 1978). Tuttavia, non si possono trascurare anche gli altri significati di questo comportamento. Infatti, anche le strutture pianificate sono oggetto di trasformazioni per quanto riguarda la loro disposizione, l'aspetto, l'organizzazione e il loro adattamento alle condizioni socio-politiche, che possono essere interpretati come svolgimenti spontanei. Pertanto, si riscontra una evidente necessità di indagare scientificamente il significato,più precisamente il significato di questo fenomeno per quanto riguarda il campo architettonico e urbano. A causa del fatto che la gamma della spontaneità architettonica è molto ampia, e che coivolge una vasta area di interesse, questo studio vuol approfondire la spontaneità che si ossserva all’interno della città contemporanea. Pertanto, il fenomeno spontaneo è analizzato nelle diverse scale architettoniche e urbane, a cominciare da quello che coinvolge la regione metropolitana della città, fino alla scala delle piccole unità architettoniche. Quindi, il riconoscimento di spontaneità come fenomeno urbano può essere diviso in due sezioni. La prima, che coinvolge l'architettura 'informale', cioè un’architettura 'non-legale' in senso burocratico (Rao, 2010), o un'architettura sviluppata senza progetto ufficialmente riconosciuto (Clemente, 2005) di cui gli esempi più noti possono essere gli insediamenti di comunità nomadi, faglie urbane, slum, ecc. E la seconda, i fenomeni 'formali', che possono essere interpretati come atti spontanei. Questa sezione comprende le tracce storiche nel tessuto della città come architettura senza architetti (Rudofsky, 1964), le trasformazioni sulle unità "formali", e l'ultimo fenomeno delle tipologie atopiche (Gregotti, 1990) a causa della complessità del territorio contemporaneo. Oltre lo stereotipo della spontaneità come non-formale, esiste una considerazione di un altro stereotipo della spontaneità in architettura: la negazione del progetto o non-pianificata. Quindi, se consideriamo la spontaneità come una generazione dei componenti architettonici, allora dobbiamo osservare le definizioni e le interpretazioni che riguardano il progetto architettonico. Pertanto, se si considera il progetto come un'atto che progetta la forma e la funzione, la instabilità in questa trasformazione (Gregotti, 1987) dalla previsione alla predizione della forma, sottolinea gli aspetti della spontaneità presente nel processo della progettazione. Nella grande scala questi aspetti possono essere riconosciuti in varie fasi storiche dello sviluppo urbano. Dagli routine antichi della formazione delle città che seguono regole adatte al contesto particolare (Koolhaas, Boeri, Kwinter, Tazi, e Obrist, 2000), passando per la città medioevale costituita da una struttura definita e compatta con i margini trascurate e vaghe (Sennett, 2007), fino ad arrivare all'area metropolitana contemporanea e la sua complessità (Secchi, 1991) generata a causa delle condizioni socio-economiche e politiche (Harvey, 1990). Inoltre, aspetti molto interessanti della spontaneità possono essere osservati nei modelli delle città in periodo dell'architettura moderna. Mentre i modernisti hanno considerato che l'architettura moderna è una rottura nella timeline della storia classica (Eisenman, 1984), i progetti ed i modelli delle città, tuttavia, continuano trascurare gli aspetti della spontaneità, poi rigorosamente discussi dalla critica postmoderna. Pertanto, qui riconosciamo due modelli estremi. Primo, il modello utopico che trascura completamente la spontaneità e proporre un progetto come idea 'nuda' architettonica, e la seconda che è una composizione 'stage' (Habermas, 1982) come la spontaneità progettata o 'falsa'. Il più significativo capovolgimento nella riconoscenza del carattere spontaneo della città viene discusso al CIAM VIII, intitolato "Il cuore della città". La spontaneità è sottolineata come un carattere positivo del campo urbano (Giedion, 1954), e in contrasto con la città storica oggi caratterizza non solo la periferia, ma anche il centro delle città (Rogers, 1952). Pertanto, portando i geni urbani, la spontaneità viene proposta come una dimensione incommensurabile e valore inestimabile che ritraggono le città. Infine, ci troviamo di fronte alle sfide dello sviluppo della città contemporanea e del suo contesto spontaneo. Quindi, uno dei temi più impegnativi dello sviluppo della città contemporanea è la questione dello sviluppo dei suoi frammenti spontanei. Se i "progetti della scala piccola” principalmente risolvono le necessità infrastrutturali e tecniche di tali aree, loro ancora appaiono come isole urbane condannati per il loro sviluppo separato, staccato dalla città (Groth e Corijn, 2005). Quindi, la tesi propone metodologie e principi che trattano lo sviluppo delle aree spontanee, e sottolineare l'importanza del coinvolgimento delle diverse scale per il loro sviluppo. In questo senso, siamo in grado di formulare le domande che non si occupano solo con le necessità degli abitanti delle zone spontanee, ma anche i problemi della città relative a questo fenomeno. RIFERIMENTI Clemente, M. (2005). Estetica delle periferie urbane : analisi semantica dei linguaggi dell’architettura spontanea. Roma: Officina. Conde, L. P., & Magalhães, S. (2004). Favela-Bairro : rewriting the history of Rio. [Rio de Janeiro]: ViverCidades. Eisenman, P. (1984). The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the End. Perspecta, 21, 154-173. Giedion, S. (1954). Descrizione del cuore: sommario del’ottavo congresso del CIAM Il Cuore della città: per una vita più umana delle comunità, The heart of the city: towards the humanisation of urban life (pp. xii, 185 p.). Milano: Hoepli editore. Gregotti, V. (1987). Previsions, predictions. Casabella, 533. Gregotti, V. (1990). Atpoic typologies; Tipologie atopiche. Casabella, 568. Groth, J., & Corijn, E. (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate spaces, informal actors and urban agenda setting. Urban Studies, 42(3). Habermas, J. (1982). “Modern and postmodern architecture” (H. Tsoskounglou, Trans.) Rethinking architecture : a reader in cultural theory. London ; New York: Routledge. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity : an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell. Koolhaas, R., Boeri, S., Kwinter, S., Tazi, N., & Obrist, H.-U. (2000). Mutations : Harvard Project on the City., . Bordeaux, France: ACTAR ; Arc en reve centre d’architecture. MacDonald, L. (1978). Spontaneous Urban Settlements. Habitat Intl., 3(1/2). Rao, V. (2010). Slum as a theory. Lotus, 143. Rogers, E. N. (1952). Il Cuore: problema umano della città CIAM 8. Il cuore della città: per une vita più umana della comunità. Milano: Hoepli. Rudofsky, B. (1964). Architecture without architects, an introduction to nonpedigreed architecture. New York,: Museum of Modern Art; distributed by Doubleday, Garden City. Secchi, B. (1991). The peryphery. Casabella, 583. Sennett, R. (2007). Open City The endless city : the urban age project by the London School of Economics and Deutsche Bank’s Alfred Herrhausen Society. London: Phaidon.