‘Broken Space’ – Between Urban Form and Individual Path

Revital Saga, Nimrod Schenkelbach, 2008-2009

“…Hence it is evident that a city is a natural production, and that man is naturally a political animal, and that whosoever is naturally and not accidentally unfit for society, must be either inferior or superior to man…Besides, the notion of a city naturally precedes that of a family or an individual, for the whole must necessarily be prior to the parts, for if you take away the whole man, you cannot say a foot or a hand remains, unless by equivocation,…That a city then precedes an individual is plain, for if an individual is not in himself sufficient to compose a perfect government, he is to a city as other parts are to a whole; but he that is incapable of society, or so complete in himself as not to want it, makes no part of a city, as a beast or a god.” Aristotle, Politics, Chapter I, Part II

Aristotle sets forth a principle statement that the city (‘state’) is a natural condition. Man is a political animal, and only by existing in a ‘political space’ can he actually realize his ‘natural being.’

Both Jerusalem and Istanbul contain, within the so-called ‘city,’ built compounds lacking in urban character, fragmented textures that developed autonomously to address immediate existential needs such as income resources and shelter on the one hand, while on the other hand being manipulated by political strategies, security considerations, and socioeconomic gaps.

An analysis of both formal and informal enclosures in Jerusalem and Istanbul amplifies the fact that interaction between the smaller enterprises is virtually nonexistent and that both areas are a collection of individual entities, hindering the realization of man’s ‘natural being’.

In order to allow the coexistence of time, space, and events, different concepts were examined in both locations. ‘Ownership’: Does ownership mean only possession of property? ‘Affinity’: How can usage stimulate the inhabitants’ affinity toward the common space? ‘Municipality’: What is the scope of the responsibilities and field of action? And ‘Architect’: Is it possible for the architect to create spatial engagement? What are the means available for the task?

By constant movement back and forth between locality and strategic planning , and individual needs and urban public functions, we aim to find a site-specific, individual set of cultural codes, and by minor yet concrete architectural intervention, to stimulate the urban vibration and continuous urban course.
Broken Space – Between Urban Form and Individual Path Presentation