Landscape – Great Idea! X-LArch III - Department für Raum ...

114
transformation; the regulative regime, focussing on real
estate regulation and its organisation; the recent societal
processes of appropriation and segregation; and the
ecological processes of succession.
The dimension of idea reflects the cultural interpretation
which we perceive: the ideology of planning questions
the relation of culture and nature; the anaesthetics of
compositions and constellations brings the limited modes
of perception to mind; and the loss of meaning focuses
on the question, Whose landscapes are we looking on?
It is interesting that the attributes of the product dimension
are all considered to be static, following the definition
of physical geography, while the attributes attached to
process and idea appear dynamic, pointing to the potential
of these dimensions to establish a comprehensive
and integrative approach to landscape.
Looking on undefined spaces in post-socialist Sofia
Analysing the case studies with regard to the attributes
presented above shows that undefined spaces in Sofia
are to be found on the interfaces of urban development
where different systems and logics of urban organisation
converge. They are also found along the inner urban
fringe where urban structures expand, and adjacent to
industrial areas where vacant spaces infiltrate functionalised
areas. Their physical constitution is often characterised
by landscape elements such as small creeks, which
often establish barriers and edges for urban development.
Hence the adjacent space forms a kind of buffer
zone, which is in many cases reshaped due to technical
and functionalised uses but is nevertheless connected to
the natural surrounding. The sites are characterised by a
high grade of fragmentation, which is reflected in the long
outlines of their ground forms. Their spatial limits are often
unincisive, resulting in spatial situations characterised
by openness and vagueness. Spatial differentiations are
produced by either the natural topography or man-made
borderlines, such as traffic alignments, fences, walls
etc. The material texture of the sites is predominantly
characterised by vegetated areas. A relevant fraction is
made up by deposits, which contribute to the topographical
composition. Paved and water-bound surfaces
are mostly limited to pathways and are only punctually
assembled to bigger areas.
The case studies impressively reflect the process-related
character of landscape. On the one hand, they show the
persistence of landscape elements against the process
of urbanization, in which the historic and recent limits
of urban development are mirrored. On the other hand,
they house relicts of former uses or abandoned endeavours
which are evocative of bygone ideas and ideologies,
structures relating to the transitoriness of human
undertaking. Characteristic for post-socialist urban
landscapes is the uncertain status in propertyship and
the diverging systems of land organisation, putting their
development status as being in limbo. The processes
of collectivization under socialism and restitution after
the formative change in the 1990´s are reflected in this.
Most of the case studies provide room for multitudes of
actual forms of use and functions. The types of uses are
linked with the dynamics of investment and degradation.
The demand of investors and developers reduces the
potential of the undefined spaces mostly to plots to be
build on. However, the degraded sites make room for
informal uses which can be traced on informal networks
of pathways, improvised settlements and playgrounds,
sites of gathering, meeting and living. In this aspect, the
case studies reflect the growing segregation of the postsocialist
society in Sofia, presenting themselves as realm
of opportunity open for interpretation and appropriation.
These processes of appropriations often make use of the
vegetative dynamics which alter the visual appearance
and the spatial perception of the site within months and,
therefore, change the landscape rapidly.
Reading undefined spaces in post-socialist Sofia as
imaginary landscapes puts forward discourses challenging
the common conception of landscape. The case studies
are very much characterised and defined by natural and
landscape elements. But modern urban planning in Sofia
was not capable of incorporating those sites into urbanity,
leaving them as anti-urban elements aside and unmasking
itself as limited understanding of urbanity (see Diener et
al 2006: 50). The anaesthetics found in the case studies
form an antipode to the homogeneous, ordered and functionalised
urban environment sought in modern planning
history in Sofia. The reshaping of the sites predominantly
regarded mere technical engineering considerations and
produced disruptions, which do not allow for a continuous
perception of space. The sites are organised and used in
flexible, informal and superimposed ways. Their temporary
and ephemeral occupations as well as their odd,
labyrinthine material configuration introduce contexts as
waste, margin, complexity and deregulation. The sites are
in respect of time and organisational logic divergent to
the rationalist city as they rather follow up an evolutionary
matter in form and use than a fixed ideal.
Characterised like this, it is obvious that undefined space
does not fit into the conception of beautified urban landscapes
planners, developers and politicians tend to speak
of (see Sofia Municipality 2004). However, they exist,
they are used and even desired, thus, they can be characterized
as informal everyday landscapes. Numerous
sites of those analysed are demanded by the losers of
the transformation process – elder people, ethnic minorities,
homeless people, children and adolescents. It is
them who produce the cultural meaning of these landscapes.
It is up to us to understand those interpretations.