Cambridge, March 20, 2013
When one thinks of cities, at least when I think of cities,
I think of streets. They can be
the curving streets that follow the topography of Tuscan hill-tows or the
orthogonal streets of gridded cities, the narrow passages of Muslim urbanism or
the wide avenues of baroque capitals.
Streets seem to define the way in which urban settlements
take shape.
Still, cities are put together in many different ways. Take for example
Parsa, the Persian city better known by its Greek name, Persepolis. It's a city of buildings, almost
unmediated by any other urban orders or spaces. On top of a large constructed plinth 60 feet above its surrounding area, buildings sit next to each other, articulating open
spaces and sequences of access and movement.
The architecture is defined by walls and columns, uninflected prismatic
masses and regular arrangements of larger central spaces, ancillary rooms and
perimeter loggias. The dimensions
of individual buildings seem to be independent from each other, responding more
to their respective programmatic demands than to any overarching framework. And I'm not sure that there are even
compositional principles at work, as if the operative notion of urbanism in
Persepolis were something like deployment.
Of course, one could argue that Persepolis is not so much a
city as a collection of palaces, but I'm not sure if that's an important
distinction. Maybe a city of ritual?
Happy Nowruz!
No comments :
Post a Comment