Architectural Porosity: Urban Heritage Wall as Common Ground for Shared Inhabitation

Öz

This paper explored the idea of architectural porosity, which consists of the relation between material and socio-spatial porosities in the context of urban heritage sites. It takes inspiration from Walter Benjamin and Asja Lacis' essay Napples (originally published in 1925), which sounded the idea of porosity as an urban condition that connects the material and socio-spatial characteristics of the city. Architectural porosity will be explored by looking at empirical examples of urban walls in Semarang Old Town, Indonesia, as a fertile vertical ground for shared inhabitation between human/non-human and formal/informal inhabitation. By looking at the publicly available aerial photography of the area and 'street views' of the urban walls from recent years, alongside direct wall observation in 2022, this paper traces the changing of Semarang Old Town, focusing on the consequence of the revitalisation since 2016/2017 which arguably resulted in an eradication of former conditions of porosity. This study unfolds the possible inclusion of alternative voices, such as acknowledging the natural ecological cycle of decay and informal inhabitation, within the discussion of urban heritage revitalisation practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Architectural Porosity
• Wall
• Urban Heritage
• Material Porosity
• Socio-spatial Porosity

Kaynakça

1. Andron, S. (2018). To Occupy, to Inscribe, to Thicken: Spatial politics and the right to the surface. In A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos & A. M. Brighenti (Eds.), Surface & Material. http://www.losquaderno.net/?p=1835
2. Arkaraprasertkul, N. (2019). Gentrifying heritage: How historic preservation drives gentrification in urban Shanghai. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(9), 882–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1460732
3. Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2017). Multiple approaches to heritage in urban regeneration: The case of City Gate, Valletta. Journal of Urban Design, 22(4), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1133230
4. Benjamin, A. (2006). Surface effects: Borromini, Semper, Loos. The Journal of Architecture, 11(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360600636099
5. Benjamin, W., & Lacis, A. (1979). Naples. In E. Jephcott & K. Shorter (Trans.), One-Way Street and Other Writings (pp. 167–176).
6. Brighenti, A. M. (Ed.). (2009). Walled Urbs to Urban Walls –and Return? On the social life of walls. In The wall and the city. Professional dreamers.
7. Brighenti, A. M., & Kärrholm, M. (2018). Urban Walls: Political and Cultural Meanings of Vertical Structures and Surfaces (A. M. Brighenti & M. Kärrholm, Eds.; 1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730225
8. Campkin, B., & Ross, R. (2012). Negotiating the City Through Google Street View. In A. Higgott & T. Wray (Eds.), Camera constructs: Photography, architecture and the modern city. Ashgate Pub. Co.

9. Celesti-Grapow, L., & Ricotta, C. (2021). Plant invasion as an emerging challenge for the conservation of heritage sites: The spread of ornamental trees on ancient monuments in Rome, Italy. Biological Invasions, 23(4), 1191–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02429-9
10. Cruz, M., & Beckett, R. (2016). Bioreceptive design: A novel approach to biodigital materiality. Architectural Research Quarterly, 20(01), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135516000130
11. Dawdy, S. L. (2010). Clockpunk Anthropology and the Ruins of Modernity. Current Anthropology, 51(6), 761–793. https://doi.org/10.1086/657626
12. Dewi, S. P., Susanti, R., & Wungo, G. L. (2020). Spatial impact of the Semarang old town revitalization: The emergence of formal and informal space. IOP COnference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 592, 1–16. https://doi.org/doi:10.1088/1755-1315/592/1/012015
13. Di Mascio, D. (2018, October 23). Narrative Urban Environments: A First Theoretical and Methodological Approach. Confluence of Architecture in the Age of Super Connectivity. The 12th International Symposium on Architectural Interchages in Asia, Pyeongchnag Alpensia, Gangwon, Korea.
14. Dona, S. (2018). Cities in Suspension. In S. Wolfrum, H. Stengel, F. Kurbasik, N. Kling, S. Dona, I. Mumm, & C. Zöhrer (Eds.), Porous city: From metaphor to urban agenda. Birkhäuser.
15. Douglas, M. (2005). Purity and danger: An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo. Routledge.
16. Dovey, K. (2012). Informal urbanism and complex adaptive assemblage. International Development Planning Review, 34(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2012.23
17. Dovey, K., & King, R. (2011). Forms of Informality: Morphology and Visibility of Informal Settlements. Built Environment, 37(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.37.1.11
18. Eckardt, F., & AlSadaty, A. (2023). Urban Heritage in Transformation: Physical and Non-Physical Dimensions of Changing Contexts. Urban Planning, 8(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i1.6633
19. Erben, D. (2018). Porous—Notes on the Architectural History of the Term. In S. Wolfrum, H. Stengel, F. Kurbasik, N. Kling, S. Dona, I. Mumm, & C. Zöhrer (Eds.), Porous city: From metaphor to urban agenda. Birkhäuser.
20. Fouseki, K., & Nicolau, M. (2018). Urban Heritage Dynamics in ‘Heritage-Led Regeneration’: Towards a Sustainable Lifestyles Approach. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 9(3–4), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2018.1539554
21. Francis, R. A. (2011). Wall ecology: A frontier for urban biodiversity and ecological engineering. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133310385166
22. Ganzhorn, A. C., Pilorgé, H., & Reynard, B. (2019). Porosity of metamorphic rocks and fluid migration within subduction interfaces. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 522, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.06.030
23. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
24. Gissen, D. (2009). Subnature: Architecture’s other environments: atmospheres, matter, life (1st ed). Princeton Architectural Press.
25. Glynn, R. (2020). Porosity and its Discontents: Approaching Naples in Critical Theory. Cultural Critique, 107(1), 63–98. https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2020.0012
26. Goodwin, R. (2011). Porosity: The architecture of invagination. RMIT Univ. Press.
27. Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical approaches. Routledge.
28. Hayes, M. (2020). The coloniality of UNESCO’s heritage urban landscapes: Heritage process and transnational gentrification in Cuenca, Ecuador. Urban Studies, 57(15), 3060–3077. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019888441
29. Lisci, M., Monte, M., & Pacini, E. (2003). Lichens and higher plants on stone: A review. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 51(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(02)00071-9
30. McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and critical urbanism. City, 15(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.568715
31. Mostafavi, M., & Leatherbarrow, D. (1993). On weathering: The life of buildings in time. MIT Press.
32. Nakamura, C. (2014). Mumbai’s quiet histories: Critical intersections of the urban poor, historical struggles, and heritage spaces. Journal of Social Archaeology, 14(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605314539419
33. Pendlebury, J., & Porfyriou, H. (2017). Heritage, urban regeneration and place-making. Journal of Urban Design, 22(4), 429–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1326712
34. Purwanto, L. M. F. (2005). KOTA KOLONIAL LAMA SEMARANG (Tinjauan Umum Sejarah Perkembangan Arsitektur Kota). Dimensi: Journal or Architeture and Built Environment, 33(1).
35. Saginatari, D. P., Hale, J., & Collett, T. (2021). THE POLITICS OF POROSITY: FROM MATERIALITY TO SOCIALITY. The 8th International Concference of Archietcture and Built Environment with AWARDs S.ARCH 2021 PROCEEDING, 339–350.
36. Sandler, D. (2016). Counterpreservation: Architectural Decay in Berlin since 1989. Cornell University Press and Cornell University Library.
37. Sassoni, E., & Franzoni, E. (2014). Influence of porosity on artificial deterioration of marble and limestone by heating. Applied Physics A, 115(3), 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-013-7863-4
38. Sennett, R. (2017). The Public Realm. In S. Hall & R. Burdett (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of the 21st Century City. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402059
39. Sennett, R. (2019). Building and dwelling: Ethics for the city. Penguin books.
40. Susser, I., & Tonnelat, S. (2013). Transformative cities: The three urban commons. Focaal, 2013(66), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.3167/fcl.2013.660110
41. Tabunan, M. L. (2022). Heritage on the Ground: A Thirdspace Reading of Calle Crisologo, Vigan City, Philippines. Heritage & Society, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2022.2126233
42. Unwin, S. (2000). An architecture notebook: Wall. Routledge.
43. Viganò, P. (2018). Porosity: Why This Figure is Still Useful. In S. Wolfrum, H. Stengel, F. Kurbasik, N. Kling, S. Dona, I. Mumm, & C. Zöhrer (Eds.), Porous city: From metaphor to urban agenda. Birkhäuser.
44. Warakanyaka, A. A. A. S. (2021). Tracing London’s urban living room. ARSNET, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.7454/arsnet.v1i2.24
45. Wolfrum, S. (2018). Porosity—Porous City. In S. Wolfrum, H. Stengel, F. Kurbasik, N. Kling, S. Dona, I. Mumm, & C. Zöhrer (Eds.), Porous city: From metaphor to urban agenda. Birkhäuser.
46. Yatmo, Y. A. (2008). Street Vendors as ‘Out of Place’ Urban Elements. Journal of Urban Design, 13(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802320889
47. Yudhistira, B., Haryani, T. N., & Nurcahyono, O. H. (2018). Angkringan Development as a Traditional Culinary Identity. Enhancing Small Medium Enterprise Competitiveness Based on Creative Economy in Innovation Disruptions, 38–43.
48. Yuliati, D., Susilowati, E., & Suliyati, T. (2020). Riwayat Kota Lama Semarang dan keunggulannya sebagai warisan dunia (Cetakan kedua). Sinar Hidoep.
49. Zaera-Polo, A. (2008). The Politics of The Envelope. Log, Fall 2008(13/14), 193–207.