LUC DELEU


GLOBAL URBANISTIC CONCEPT FOR THE EUROPEAN DISTRICT IN BRUSSELS, ARGUMENTATION FOR NOMINATION (AUGUST 6, 2002)


ORBANISM

I launched my project which I refer to with the word orbanism as early as 1980 – probably under the influence of Buckminster Fullers' poetic name 'Spaceship Earth' and having seen the first photos ever of the globe. The Earth is our spaceship, our mother and the home of all people. At that time, orbanism already referred to an (urban) design practice which was meant to be integrated at a planetary level and tried to consider the earth as the spatial and social context for cities and architecture. In this respect, orbanism
strived towards a balanced organization of the Earth's space.
In other words, orbanism is the metaphysical and material arrangement of the world for the commonwealth , in the public intrest. Orbanism aims to achieve a dynamic balance between order and chaos, between architecture and life, between culture and neo-culture... Orbanism is as environment-friendly as possible. Because we have to organize construction in a more and more decreasing natural space, ecology, in fact a global system, must always be the main structural principle of the ongoing orbanization or the conquering of nature by man.

Orbanism implies solidarity and the right balance. It is eco-centric, balanced and unique.

The more the globalization is praised, the more a general view of our planet becomes not only obvious but actually indispensable. We are evolving – at least we hope so – towards a world with global people and global institutions, subject to global rights and
obligations and bearing global responsibilities.

URBANISM

Since CIAM, serious urbanism can be nothing else but planning for the benefit of all. Since then, urbanism became synonym of the architecture of a house for society. Consequently, urbanism becomes much more complex and wants to include the many facets involved in the spatial organization of the entire city and even urban networks. At the peak of its abilities, urbanism creates a flexible and sustainable system for all levels of society, during several generations and throughout the various models of society. At its best, (urban) architecture is a symbol of freedom for several generations and as such strives to achieve a certain degree of timelessness.

With its examples, design methods and strategies at a formal, spatial, structural and programmatic level, a conceptual urbanism wants to provide a stimulating framework. Ideas as an inspirational force are economic and efficient.

ARCHITECTURE

As urbanism takes place in an orbanistic framework, architecture takes place in the urban context.

In today's global village with its complex society, involvement at a planetary level can no longer be ignored in the current context of worldwide communication and information.
In art history and art criticism, the (realised) examples of architecture are nearly all objects of propaganda with which the client likes to manifest himself. He wants to sell himself, a concept or an idea to society through architecture. The architect gives the building a metaphysical added value; he gives the building a soul and so elevates a building to architecture.

When the modernists began to include everyday programs in architecture, a persistent ongoing confusion arose between the terms architecture and building, and between house and architecture. Until today, these two completely different notions are seen en understood as one. However, architecture is a spiritual and cultural reality and by no means a valid pretext for building.

A CONTEMPORARY THEORY OF PUBLIC SPACE

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, globalization and deregulation are reflected in all aspects of our society and also in urban concepts and in the city itself. Public authorities are forced to share more and more of their power with private institutions and this means public spaces are gradually being privatized. Are the powers involved in the field of urbanism of our so-called democratic western world still controlled in a democratic manner and is it still possible to control them? Is public space still being arranged democratically and do we still believe that it can be shaped in a democratic manner ? Although until today a narrow architectural vision refusing this social and political debate continues to exist, a twenty-first century concept for the threatened public space could provide among other things a new ethical paradigm for private institutions that interfere more and more in public space and consequently – perhaps involuntarily - (will) have to assume public responsibility.

Democracy must exert its powers in the design and organization of public space, preferably on a permanent basis. The design and the protection of public space, the forum, should be controlled unconditionally by a public authority, in the interest of men, voters and safety, and should be considered as an urgent priority for urban architecture.

Now that the world is evolving so rapidly, a new and broader definition of our universal space is required. The communal space in general (our environment) requires a much finer differentiation and simultaneously acquires a global scope. There are several scales: the global communal spaces (the oceans for example), the national and regional communal spaces (landscapes for example) and urban communal spaces with their squares, streets and alleys. Our communal spaces can be forbidden sites, inaccessible or partially accessible areas. They can be easy or difficult to reach, they may be hidden, dangerous or safe, attractive or ugly, and so on, however, in their own special way they all require the specific attention of the political authorities. It is clear that an in-depth study, the designation and cataloguing of space types on (a planetary) scale shall raise environmental planning to a higher level.
The urban scale covers a wide range of public and private spaces. The communal urban space begins with the surrounding landscape (usually a neo-landscape) which in certain cases is a small or large integral part of the city (views of the sea, a river, a panorama or skyline, for example).

The negative city, the city landscape, the form and spatial dimension of the city or the urban void is evidently universal. In this respect, the public space or the so-called forum is in addition a very specific part which in turn consists of different spaces which can each be located outside, indoors or covered. Furthermore, the city consists of an amalgam of communal spaces such as free spaces or residual spaces, infrastructure spaces, spaces for car traffic, for bicycles and pedestrians – together or separated – and also several pseudo-public spaces and semi-public and semi-private spaces. All these typical spaces, their mutual relationship and their relation to the private world are in my opinion an interesting program for urban architecture.

DEFRAGMENTATION

The autonomy of the image is an interesting characteristic of the large scale. In nature, the small scale is chaotic while at a large scale nature always creates an image. From close by, a beach is an unstable collection of sand, shells, pebbles, rocks and plants, however, from the sea it is a wonderful, stable and autonomous image. Likewise, the large-scale pattern of the dynamic city, despite its ever-changing facets and its temporary, variable and unstable program, is an image that deserves an architectural urban plan.

Societies of free people inevitably live in spatial chaos that requires an important amount of tolerance. However, major concepts, structures and interventions appeal to our sense of order and proportions and move us emotionally and intellectually. If they can satisfy us, they constitute the necessary counterbalance: 'large-scale order, small-scale chaos!'

Urban architecture in particular requires the ability to switch fast and flexibly between scale levels, between large and small. Complexity and simplicity interact continually in the urban architecture design process. Analysis and synthesis alternate.

Besides fragmentation, defragmentation must also be part of architectural urban strategies and resources. All man-made structures fragment and integrate simultaneously . The world is globalizing, regionalizing and atomizing simultaneously. A balanced urban space shows fragmentation and defragmentation. Ideally, also cities should be defragmented on a regular basis.

Designing from large to small or 'top-down' is fairly obvious and relatively easy. However, from small to large or "bottom-up" is not so evident, highly complex, difficult and confusing. The European Union is a good example! Nevertheless, both methods are important and have their advantages and disadvantages when designing a city. The first method is structuring, the second destructuring. The first creates unity and tranquillity while the second creates diversity and commotion. The first is elitist, the second popular.

Developing the large scale from the small scale ensures a differentiated result because it takes into account peculiarities, exceptions and individuality: it is an essential guarantee for the conservation of individual freedom.