Manuel de Sola Morales

Public and collective space

The urbanization of the
private domain as a new challenge
Since the late nineteenth century, the distinction between
public space and private space has been a major theme in Western
think urban. The onion tbreidingsplannen, the expropriation laws
the metropolitan parks and major civil works of the ti jd his fine
examples of d i t distinction. It was desired, this distinction to
amplify long as it makes it became possible to the public domain more important than the private property - to increase and improve.
This appreciation of public spaces was rooted in the
Utopian thinking of the last century, where the ideal model
balanced city (as a target) and the formation of a device gemeentel i jk
(As a tool) the ideological pillars were of every progressive
city politics.
To defend this day and officials involved
technicians public green, reservations and infrastructure
facilities and open urban space as the principal urban planner
goal. And maintain it pol ici and bewonersorganisat ies, according to
the same idea, the requirement of "public square meter" as the best way
to make the city more available to its state residents.
Since belangri jke theories about the city in the seventies
developed the distinction between public and private space along
two main lines. The first, based on the studies of mono grave ic
cities, grabbed the value of the strict building line again when the instrument
to the main typological elements of the urban brand i jke shape
define (streets, parks, expansion areas, centers). This approach
united with the second one, onion tgaand the far not mourn in the
'Architecture of the city, "starring the great architectural
objects highlighted in the symbol ic f ive igurat define the city
and her memory.
The third, perhaps most trivial approach to the concept of the
public area (and thereby accepting the most simple) in order for the
public space design as a system: as a sequence of open
areas thus forming a uni form a whole. As the system of parks
Olmsted in Boston, Henard weighing system in Paris or the
This article was published in March 1992 in the cultural supplement of the
newspaper La Vanguardia.
school system of the English post-war 'neighborhood planning.

It is the latter approach which is included in the so-called

'General system' of our urban planning regulations, developed
has become one of the most rigid and rigid concepts of public
space.
The other approaches - which of the value of the city as an architectural
and those of the urban fabric as a design task - led to the
"Drawn urbanism" and "urban town planning 'as methodological
hypotheses the funct ional ist symbolic abstraction of the stain and
zoning had to overcome and again demanded the attention
for the shape of the city as a specific spatial structure. The
Catalan urbanization in the beginning of the eighties, forms the sample
par excellence of this approach.
Many of the better current urban programs are rooted
in this theoretical 'acceleration' in the seventies to the city
and cherished focal point was the urban,
political and sociological attention.
In recent years, the remarkable achievement of public
spaces and public buildings in several European cities - these
Principles remote part next, partly forgetting - some brilliant
windows yielded full aesthetic consumer good. Pictures
are competitive in the mass but no urban
provide arguments sense of the long term.
In Barcelona, after the installation of a democratic government, was
'Escape' to the public space spectacular. It seemed like everything
turned around to conquer the public space and celebrate. The hard squares
appeared, and the less hard. Each filling that gap between the buildings
remained open. Between 1978 and 1982 they paid their full energy into it
exploiting these holes and holes for a new face to the city
give (a different style and a different logic) and there is one noteworthy
successfully managed.
Not so much because the designs were always equally successful, but rather
because seeing changing the urban landscape from its voids
anyway it was a new and innovative experience. Barcelona did not
everyone recognize that, but outside there was universally acclaimed.
After 1982 appeared the parks. A stream of large public spaces
could be added to the city by the dismantle ing estates
or industrial areas. The size and location of the parks were free will
random; like the squares they appeared wherever it was possible.
Namely where the congregation could intervene relatively simple; through a
already started rehabilitation intervention to bend (la Merce, Raval), on

abandoned industrial sites (Espanya Industrial, Pegaso) on already public

but unused places (Sants Excorxador, Moll de la Fusta) or
simply by redesigning public squares (Plaza Reial, plazas
de Gracia). Although it would take to search for spatial
consistency of these procedures it will be appreciated that the occasion
main criterion was the choice of location. The opportunity for a
municipal system to act - on land that is not privately
hands - so as to the amount of spaces whose management,
property and design enabled increase of the church and
improve. Image and property of the city identified themselves more and
more with each other, in such a way that it Barcelona of these years
has shown how 'modern' by a civil service made can
be and how, as a consequence, in urban public
spaces a strong image and even can give a lead.
But it would be dangerous if we would only make us worry about
the shape of the city where that city management is of the municipal
device. In the last few years have little meaningful and robust
developments in the private domain which occurred innovative
there may be mentioned (for example in the field of housing or
offices). And right would always, in addition to the superb value and flawless
merit of enriching the city with boulevards, parks,
squares, ring roads, stadiums, museums and theaters, a widening spectrum
of the common town can be produced which contributes
the hypertrophy of the public space itself.
The importance of public space lies not in the degree of vastness,
the quantitative superiority of the symbolic lead it, but
the connections between them in private, confined spaces,
which are also areas which made collective heritage. An urban,
give public character of those buildings that otherwise only
would be decided - the urbanization of the private domain - that's it
concept. That is, the private record in the sphere of influence
the public.
Take for example the old town. The breakthroughs in the Raval are
largely the legacy of a planning with a long history. The
Most was built on land that was available for public
surgeries. In other parts of the district's open spaces are defined by
the lot boundaries of demolished houses or blocks, nothing more. There
where new building has appeared, the contradiction
clear of modern construction techniques in the old tissue
trying to fit in, and the middle class modern homes prove -

paradoxically - bombastic and little functional.

The operations consist largely of new homes, squares and
parking basements, and this simplicity is perhaps the cause of the schematic
hardness of the result. The shape of the space in the old town
should refer to the discussion of the social objective of the
changes in this area and thus the potential for
program.
Perhaps they should have been for the rooms in the old town
search for a new typological form for pensions, more hygienic
bars and nightclubs and joint shelter for artisans and merchants,
then to middle class homes or new university libraries.
And a number of existing, already frequently transformed
fragments in the current structure could provide solutions
tailored much more are on the way of life in that area than the
great emptiness that results from the Central European's 'sanitary' planning.
The operation at this impressive supposed revitalization seems
will therefore not take place. The public as a label of
squares, houses and garages did not directly required contribution
delivered to the collective appropriation of this by the townspeople,
which one wanted to identify.
It's not that the projects realized in the old city not good
would be, but for a so complicated the task exclusively is
'Public' characteristic enough: the hypertrophy of the "official city '
neglects certain forms of collective life and can even
Make disappear. The collective space is much more and much less than the
public space as we see it limited to public ownership. The
civil, architectural, urbanistic and morphological wealth
a city is that of collective spaces, of all the places where the
everyday life takes place, and presents itself as a souvenir present
is. And perhaps that is increasingly spaces that are not public or private,
but both at the same time: public spaces for private activities
used or spaces that allow a collective use. Is' el
Corte Ingles ", the big department store on Plaza Catalunya, a public or
a private domain? Economically, it is clearly a private
matter, but it does not apply to the use and meaning
has for the city. It is no coincidence that discussion there for five years
over the wall renew. And the church of Santa Maria del Mar
Public or private? And the Barcelona football stadium?
Public and private water down the categories and no longer suffice.
Even some outstanding public places such as the Plaza Sant Jaume or

Rambla fully disclosed because of their significance and ownership,

change in collective spaces through the free pillaging by
several private activities. In Barcelona, many examples
Finding such mixing areas with a significant collective meaning.
The Boqueria market is perhaps the most striking example:
a place where the public ownership and management effortlessly combine
with private initiatives and activities of users, or
now sellers are whether all those people who work on the complementary
activities that generate the market in its immediate vicinity. Or take the now
disappeared restaurants on the beach of Barceloneta. But the bar
on the corner, the school, the newspaper kiosk or metro stop a spatial
system with different rights and obligations, which as public but
Also collective system determines the main lines along which the urban life
unfolds. It also play an important strictly public areas
role, although only partially, and perhaps even less with the day
necessary.
A mall or a pasture shop, an amusement park or a
stadium, a large parking lot or a shopping arcade are the telltale
spots in everyday life, the collective spaces of our time.
And especially public transport in major cities is a common
reference point. Because of the frequency and extent of the massive use,
because of the variety of public and psychological weight as
meaning bearer of metropolitan life. The latest film by Eric
Rohmer - Conte d'hiver - shows this well. This in contrast to the l ing
object-based approach to urban space by Wim Wenders.
Hotels, restaurants, weekend and tourist centers, peripheral discotheques;
it is these undefined spaces where the public form of the
City deploying the game. The periphery is paradoxically the actual
center of the life of the city and will be formed
be passed through the spaces which have a meaning as places of
society without the rhetoric of formal representation.
When working on the new urban retirements is the task of the urbanists
to make an intermediate of these spaces. Neither
public nor private but the opposite; areas which are not sterile
and delivered to the publicity but form a stimulating part
the multiform urban fabric. And it is important to the Keynesian
'Welfare city' - or in other words the subsidized urbanity - move
more risky, less obvious and more interesting
areas. If not, we risk jamming in the categories of
baroque urban space, albeit adapted to the latest in style and fashion

material.
Recognizing this problem is extremely important for the urban
design and opens a new field of research by different
scales back running. At present we ignore the classic
explanation of public space as an expression of the agreed
values within a company, and thus the condition of the public
as a form par excellence of the social. The fact is, by contrast, that the city
exactly the place where the private domain can be a social domain and
is often too; as much, or more so, than the public. The 'good' city
Therefore, the city where the private buildings and public elements
radiate a social meaning and value that go beyond the
building itself and in which their urban character lies. The residential palaces
on the Paseo de Gracia or the shops on Calle Ferran its urban
phenomena which have much more significance than that of the private
ownership. In this manner, the city is built up both in good houses,
good shops and good bars and from boulevards and monuments
representative buildings. The great city is the city that manages a
provide public value to the private domain. In addition, is the quality of
the individual a condition for its contribution to the collective.
Is it not true that the bars of the night Barcelona one of the most
interesting urban phenomena of form in recent years? Why?
Because of their private nature is not separate from the attention
collective values and interests.
The collective spaces constitute the wealth of historic towns and
are certainly the main structure for the future ish town.
Perhaps it is true that the undefined spaces in our cities
increasingly signifiers of everyday life in different
methods may be used, and appropriated by the different
urban "tribes". Perhaps it is true that the shape of the 'place-less'
city, over which Frederic Jameson writes, a loss of the copublic space and private authority characterizes our environment.
They say that gives the 'cyberpunk' literature beautiful descriptions
this modern condition where the distinction between public and private
fades by abolishing the differences that were conducted.
It is said that these differences are abolished in Blade Runner. And also
Umberto Eco left them behind when he wrote of the new medieval
character of the current territory.
It therefore seems a significant theoretical mistake to
public urban spaces to conceive only as a venue for a
architecture without content or design objects, and with a consistency that

does not extend beyond the object itself. Al s urban beautification 'has
undoubtedly contributed to the recognition of the importance of aesthetic
city operations. But for a master plan with more ambition
satisfies neither the neo-typologisme a la Durand, who as public works
considers classify structures nor the neo-picturesque a la Sitte, which
the leading role of the public areas to the archi tectonic context
shifts (most 'modern' urban design programs of the main
European cities are children of these views). They deny
the complex nature of the collective urban space and limit what
an area of experiences should be up to a space defined by
prejudices.
Translation: Els Bet