- citati u SCIndeksu: 0
- citati u CrossRef-u:[1]
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:45
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:31
|
|
2018, vol. 10, br. 1, str. 47-58
|
Hobrehtov plan (Hobrecht plan) i rađanje urbanizma
The 'Hobrecht plan' and the emergence of the urban
Ključne reči: Hobreht; Berlinski blok; Šoa; urbanizam
Keywords: Hobrecht; Berlin block; Choay; urbanism
Sažetak
Plan proširenja Berlina Džejmsa Hobrehta (James Hobrecht) iz 1862. godine, kao i Berlinski blok (arhitektonska komponenta tog plana), i dalje definišu sadašnju strukturu Berlina. Uprkos negiranju ovog plana tokom većeg dela dvadesetog veka, Urbana struktura proistekla iz ovog grafičkog dokumenta je sveprisutna. Istraživanja o Hobrehtovom planu su retka i tiču se interpretacija vezanih za istorijski kontekst. Ovaj rad daje Berlinskom bloku značajnije mesto u urbanističkoarhitekstonskom kontekstu i ističe specifičnu urbanu racionalnost koja postavlja pitanje: Šta je grad? Fransoa Šoa (Françoise Choay) je identifikovao novi urbani identitet u teorijama Ildefonsa Serda (Ildefons Cerda), koje služe kao podloga za buduće teorije urbanizma. Ovaj rad tvrdi da Hobrehtov plan i Berlinski blok predstavljaju ilustraciju tekstualnih figura u Šoaovoj teoriji.
Abstract
James Hobrecht's Berlin extension plan of 1862 and its architectural component, the Berlin block, continue to define Berlin's current urban structure. The urban structure which these graphic documents helped to deliver persisted despite being rejected through much of the twentieth century. Despite its significance, research on the Hobrecht plan is scarce, and many interpret the plan through its historical context. By contrast, this paper argues that the Berlin block cannot be reduced to representations through its urban plan and architectural component. Instead, they provide a specific urban rationality that poses the question: What is a city? Françoise Choay identified a new urban figure in Ildefonso Cerdá's urban theories, a figure that comes to underlie subsequent theorisations of the urban. The paper argues that the Hobrecht plan and its component block can be read as the graphic and spatial counterpart to Choay's textual figure of the urban.
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
Assmann, G. (1862) Grundrisse für städtische Wohngebäude: Mit Rücksicht auf die in Berlin geltende Bauordnung. Berlin
|
|
Bernet, C. (2005) The 'Hobrecht Plan' (1862) and Berlin's urban structure. Urban History, 31(3), (June): 400-419
|
|
Borsi, K. (2009) Strategies of the Berlin Block. u: di Palma V., Periton D., Lathouri M. [ur.] Intimate Metropolis, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 132-152
|
|
Bruch, E. (1870) Berlins bauliche Zukunft und der Bebauungsplan. Deutsche Bauzeitung, 4: 69-71
|
|
Choay, F. (1969) The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century. New York: George Braziller
|
|
Choay, F. (1997) The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Architecture and Urbanism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
|
|
Eberstadt, R. (1910) Die Spekulation im neuzeitlichen Städtebau. Jena: Fischer
|
|
Fehl, G. (1984) Berlin wird Weltstadt: Wohnungsnot und Villenkolonien. u: Rodríguez-Lores Juan, Fehl Gerhard [ur.] Städtebaureform 1865-1900: von Licht, Luft und Ordnung in der Stadt der Gründerzeit, Hamburg: Christians, I: 101-152
|
|
Geist, J., Küvers, K. (1980-1989) Das Berliner Mietshaus. Munich: Prestel, Volumes I, II & III
|
|
Heinrich, E. (1962) Der Hobrechtplan. Jahrbuch für brandenburgische Landesgeschichte, 41-58
|
|
Hoffmann, A.D. (1993) Die dritte Stadt: Bausteine eines neuen Gründungsvertrags. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp
|
|
Ladd, B. (1990) Urban planning and civic order in Germany, 1860-1914. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
|
|
Offmann, A.D. (2011) Das Berliner Stadthaus: Geschichte und Typologie 1200-2010. Berlin: Dom Publishers
|
|
|
|