Be there or be square
Squares shape the cityscape and provide points of orientation. Historically they mark the centre - usually around churches or a public building. As public well or market squares they were and are communicative meeting points and developed a highly dynamic environment. But: In the past and in present days many squares are not optimally utilised. They become deserted or are regarded as dead space. “Being square" is simply not enough. A critical view of the phenomenon "free city space".Squares create perspective
Traditionally they do not possess any linear, geometric design. This creates perspective and a wealth of variations. Every spot has its own characteristic which invites you to linger or pass on.
And sometimes the attractiveness and quality of the facades, as well as their suitability as square periphery, is just as responsible for the acceptance of the square. That is why buildings around a square are always more elaborately designed than the buildings behind.
A square is also always in minimum relationship to surrounding buildings and opens new perspectives. This is why some squares have developed their own momentum and have overcome this minimum relationship. A good example is New York Square. This square offers more than elaborate facades. These are the interesting perspectives which lead you away from the square and those paths which, on the other hand, lure you back. Such perspectives are essential for such squares in order to qualify as such, irrespective of the city you are currently visiting.
Apart from a few historical examples going back to ancient times, selective town planning was only initially introduced in the 19th Century. Magnificent avenues and squares were deliberately created. A well-known example is Paris, where Hausemann had entire city districts revamped to create new streets and squares. Apart from the strategic and increasingly traffic related relevance, the representational character came to the fore. As stylistic units they are distinctive and imposing, but are rather unsuitable as dwelling and living space for the public.
If squares are planned in the course of city extensions today, they are predominantly designed as free space and green areas between buildings. These are not really suitable as enhanced living space either. Or they result in traffic related intersections.
What makes the square a square?
A square is only considered as one if it arises out of a series of consolidations and extensions, or out of the stress ratio between constriction and expanse. Individual identification is hardly found on a strictly rectangular space with streets meeting in the centre - the eye is only caught by curvatures, slopes and architectural differentiation.
The demand is clearly defined - in urban life, a square should be the extended, public "living space", meeting point and communication area. Unfortunately this is usually neglected and only theoretically takes place in the town planners' heads. True life plays a different game. Acceptance or non-acceptance is decided by numerous criteria occurring outside of the design coquetry.
A current, frequently discussed example is the Schwarzenbergplatz in Vienna, in which autistic experimental functions were designed without urbanistic context and which could practically not be experienced or lived. What is perceived is a cobble-stone desert with traffic veins and a forest of floodlight pillars.
Some work, some don't.
The phenomenon of unused squares is particularly accumulated in so-called satellite cities and is easily ascribed to the low population density: Apart from the usual local supply there are hardly any other shops. How could there be? A reduced number of potential buyers is not really lucrative for a settlement of shops.
However, people are looking for their intimacy and their private life just as much here as they would in a city, but they are living within the scope of something more like a village. So it's not surprising if satellite cities seem like "ghost towns", as they almost exclusively consist of residential areas. A successful mixture of shops and residential areas is an important prerequisite for a lively area, as life-filled squares can only develop in the right environment.
But - alas - life cannot be implemented from one day to the other. People aren't made in a day either.
More space for Vienna.
If one would try to combine Vienna and the above-mentioned successful mixture one would ascertain that Vienna often decides in favour of large shopping streets as opposed to urban squares. These streets obviously also have their merit, but they have concentrated shops and active street life to just a few spots. A short comparison to Paris: Irrespective of where you are in this city, you will see and find shops and restaurants everywhere - whether it be boutiques, bistros or bakeries. It is surprising how so much trade can survive, but nonetheless it allegedly does so in abundance...
All the same, most visitors to Vienna are thrilled with the magnificence of this city, and rightly so. This is definitely not due to the size of this metropolis, because size is not a prerequisite for the excitement of a city and its squares. Maybe the reason can be found elsewhere - namely in the mentality and openness of its people.
But that's another story.
Marcus Kutschera
