Fluid spaces in a contemporary urban context: questioning the boundary between architecture and infrastructure
The aim of this paper is to research the relations between the contemporary networked context and transformations in the understanding of architectural and infrastructural spaces, and to research the main models of fluidity within this relation. The contemporary urban context is characterized by globalization, transculturalism and increased technological development, which simultaneously change the everydayness, usage and perception of urban spaces and architecture. New networking phenomena occurring on informational, communicational and spatial levels transform the city and its architecture into constant processes of flows. Fluidity is positioned as the main problem of this research, simultaneously causing, and manifesting in, transformations of contemporary spatial conditions where the notion of flow becomes the new spatial quality. This research is focused on one of the main spatial manifestations of the fluidity phenomenon in contemporary cities – the dispersion of the boundary between architectural and infrastructural space. The aim of the paper is to present the idea that fluid spaces are characterized by: 1) increased loss of disciplinary boundaries; 2) loss of physical boundaries – inner-outer space overlapping; 3) dispersion of perceptual boundaries in space. The research is significant because it defines new meanings of spaces of flows and movement in a contemporary urban context.
Allen, S. (1999). Points + Lines. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Angelil, M., Klingmann, A. (1999). Hybrid morphologies: infrastructure, architecture, landscape, Daidalos, No. 73, pp. 16-25.
Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places. London: Verso.
Cairns, S. (2012). Flows. In G. Crysler, S. Cairns, H. Heynen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory. Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 451-464.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Corner J. (2006). Terra Fluxus. In Ch. Waldheim, (Ed.), The Landscape Urbanism Reader. NY: Princeton.
Delalex, G. (2006). Go with the Flow. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Easterling, K. (1999). Organization Space. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.
Forrester, J. (1969). Urban Dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gausa, М. (2003). The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the Information Age. Barcelona: Actar.
Goldblatt, D. (2007). Lightness and Fluidity: Remarks Concerning the Aesthetics of Elegance, Architectural Design, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 10-17.
Graham, S., Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism. London: Routledge.
Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., Sigler, J., Werlemann, H. (1998). Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large. New York: Monacelli Press.
Kwinter, S. (1998). "LaCitta` Nuova: Modernityand Continuity,” Zone1–2. In M.Hays (Ed.), Architectural Theory Since 1969. London: MIT Press, pp. 586-612.
Mossop, E. (2006). Landscape urbanism. In Ch. Waldheim (Ed.), The Landscape Urbanism Reader. NY: Princeton.
Niković, A., Manić, B. (2018). A Possibility of Introducing the Concept of Form into Urban Planning in Serbia, SPATIUM, No. 40, pp. 18-24.
Pawley, M. (1998). Terminal Architecture. London: Reaktion Books.
Wigley, M. (2001). Network Fever, Grey Room, No. 4, pp. 82-122.