Курортні території I місце
Chizzoniti Domenico Giuseppe
Chizzoniti Domenico Giuseppe
Номінація: «Комплекси» Курортні території
(готелі, база відпочинку, кемпінг, санаторій)
Об’єкт: ” EXPERIMENTAL PUBLIC AND CULTURAL CENTERS IN THE OLD TOWN OF PRAGUE ”
Prague is located in the centre if the Czech basin, surrounded by mountain ranges. The main reason for its location was a set of fords with an advanta- geous central position on the Vltava River, which draws the south-northern axis of Bohemia. In addition the Vltava river flows through deep
valleys with steep slopes, so in old times it was difficult to cross.
At the 10th century Jewish settlement was established at the ford across Vltava river. 1041 the Romanesque reconstruction of Vysehrad was made. Later on 12 century the consolidation was made of settlements around the Old Town marketplace including present day streets Karlova,
Kaprova, Husova and Celenta. Beggining of 13the century the Jewish Ghetto and cemetery was made. The information about early Jewish settlement and their individual housing in Prague around
that time is fragmented. However, Základy starého místopisu pražského (1437 – 1620) already provides materials for the early topographic analysis of Prague, W.W. Tomek listed 143 Jewish individual houses in the ghetto area.
The entire area of the Jewish settlement through years was fenced and thus separated from its Christian surrounding. The Ghetto was an area with its own configuration composed of its main streets and its side routes. Similar Jewish settlements are known in Spain, Portugal, Italy of the
same time. In 1897 started clearance of the city that covered Jesefov quarter and New Town and nothing could stand on its way. The Prague ghetto and its neighbourhood were demolished and a
new residential quarter was built. This aspect of the research as transformations in the Old Town of Prague and modifications in the organisation of the jewish quarter is described through the result of the mapping process.
The existence of separated Jewish quarters, usually surrounded by the wall, originated in the preferences of the Jews to live in a way to keep their laws and traditions and defend themselves if need be. The idea of a ghetto in its restricted sense resulted from the tendency implanted in
Christianity to isolate the jews. While Jewish quarters may have been a feature of the middle ages, the establishment of the first ghetto by name took place in the renaissance era. The Ghetto’s Jews did not refer to their enforced residence as a jail. Rather, it was a ‘camp of the
Hebrews,’ a place of Holiness on the way to the Promised Land.
THE JEWISH APPROACH TO ARCHITECTURAL FORMS
All areas of Jewish life supposed to be determined by the rules of the Halakhah, the Jewish religious law. In fact, in the European Diasporas, cultural and political circumstances often prevent Jewish communities from observing this goal. Overall, the Jewish communities had to submit to the will of the local authorities in many ways in regards to the outer appearance of the synagogue. However, they could take decisions concerning the interior scape and therefore just the ritual space of the
synagogue can be seen as a true reflection of the demands of the Jewish law. The synagogue is the only tipe that can refer to the so called “jewish typology” with its centric composition enforcing the fence of the community being inside. The Torah Ark and the bimah are two crucial elements which define the arrangement within the synagogue and distinguish it from other sacred rooms about location of those according to Torah there are surprisingly just a few rules that had to be respected. Usually large synagogues were erected as a centric buildings with bimah in the middle so that everyone can hear the Torah reading. Such composition can be found in synagogues all over the Europe. In a wide context of religious
history, these architectural features lastly suggest a basic principle of the Jewish attitude towards forming.
IS THERE ANY JEWISH ARCHITECTURE?
It can be argued, rather there is such a thing as Jewish space or for that matter anything that can be called Christian space or any other ethnic space that remains constant or essential despite changes in time, place, and religious or ethnic practice. It is impossible to pin down ethnic space even at one time in one location, and to explain why shall address both synagogue architecture and the Jewish Museum in Berlin.
Certainly, spatial configurations assist various kinds of prayer. In traditional synagogues of the Ashkenazi (German) rice, the bimah platform for the reader of the Torah is situated in the centre of the congregation. The u-shaped configuration of seats around the bimah enables all the participants to see and hear the reader, and it allows eye-contact with each other to reinforce the sense of community and mutual participation. But the arrangement of sears in many Sephardi synagogues is equally helpful. A common interior arrangement aliens the seats on the long walls, so that the
congregation can look in one direction to see the ark, or repository for the Torah scrolls, and in the opposite direction to see the bimah platform from which the scrolls are read. In this arrangement, too, the congregation members can see each other and feel bound together as a group. The
Ashkenazi space is centralised; the Sephardi space is bi-focal. Which is Jewish? Perhaps both. But neither is exclusively Jewish: Roman Catholics since 1965 have often worshipped in centralised spaces, like those of Ashkenazi Jews. Cathedral choir arrangements and the form of university
chapels are virtually the same as those of Sephardi synagogues; in major churches, the configuration assists choral responses and in chapels, it perhaps coincidentally enforces discipline since everyone is visible and therefore cannot doze off during services. What’s more, there are other synagogue configurations. Most common today in the USA and
Western Europe is an axial arrangement in which the bimah is placed close to the ark at one end of the synagogue, a configuration much like that of many churches and probably influenced by Protestant church interiors. Is this not Jewish, considering that even though for almost two hundred
years, this has been a spatial configuration that has suited a majority of the American faithful? Only the extreme Orthodox would claim that Re- form and Conservative Judaism are not Jewish. The surroundings for these spatial configurations varied greatly, so that it is hard to claim any
physical form as the standard for Jewish worship, or as Jewish space, or any sort of word space that refers to something tangible.
THE PROPOSAL The project located in the Old Town of Prague (Josefov Ghetto), which is a contradicted and complex site as the overlap between Jewish and local culture exists. However, cultural difference
did not affected the overall appearance of the city center of Prague. As the research on urban transformations of Prague city showed the site saw many urban transformations including the demolition of the old Jewish Ghetto, that make many questionable places for an architectural and
urban discourse. One of the main Urban transformation was the demolition of the Jewish Ghetto( Synagogues, narrow street pattern, etc.), which make the place nowadays far from homogeneous appearance as an old part of the city. The proposal deals with the understanding the
relationships between different cultures that coexisted together through the centuries. As a result of this fact, the idea of the design experimental spaces become possible. The project was located in three sites across the Pařížská street which starts from the Old Town Square of Prague and
continues to the Check Bridge. Nowadays urban fabric based on the demolition of the Old Jewish Ghetto and creating a new urban pattern. This changes were always been an issue of resolving the heritage and cultural identity of the place. The project divided into three different Public and Cultural centers, which are in their architectural language are Experimental. The first site was in the intersection of the Vltava River and the Check Bridge. From the first site, the place is ordinary, however, it deals with the intersection of two different urban patterns one from the
old times and another one with the result of new urban development. Our approach of this particular site, which in fact is parallel to the Vltava river, is creating an experimental theatre. The theatre composed of three main elements including the long exhibition space, the theatre and the library.
This element of the complex is composed together in a way that they can function together opening toward the centre, as it can become an experimental theatre. Second site is located south to the first one, as in between them is located the hotel building, which was the result of the urban changes after the demolition of Ghetto. This site is surrounded in three sides with the old buildings and creates a square along the street. The idea of the proposal for this site is to keep the ground floor open to the public and develop the architectural space underground.
The space here that was designed is a Multifunctional space for different activities including theatrical and musical ones.
The third site is close to the Jewish Old-New synagogue. As the site is particular with its architectural heritage, the proposal is designed mainly on the underground level leaving the main element higher and respecting the orientation of the Synagogue. The second site and its intervention was taken as a reference for the presentation, however the proposed technical solutions can be applied to the rest of the project. The presented proposal was a multifunctional space that can be used as a conference hall, performance or theatrical space and so on. The total ground floor area which is open public space is 1285.200 m2; Underground spaces ( conference halls, theatre, performance places , exhibition areas), total cover 3560.150m2