Should urban square be empty, without trees and disappointing like this ?
After a After a week of watching Tianjin Central Cultural Square, I found that it is empty during daytime as the photo shows, except it has few people who go through to another exit from the Sqaure. The centre of the square has a big fountain here, but it does not work now. In fact, it is clear that a fountain like this is impossible to work properly everyday to attract people. Also, it needs a lot of electricity to make it work. So, it has been stopped becasue of the cost and because and the square is normally empty. Here is a question: why it should have been designed as an empty space?
Then, please have a look at the photo below, which is an aerial view of the first master plan in 1922 for this space. It was called ‘France Park’ ) and it was designed and built by the French Bureau. The circle in the centre of the re-designed square is just the old plan for the design of the above empty square before which is not at all designed without trees or place for people to play. Here is another question: why were the big trees were removed? Wikipedia gives a short definition for square: A square (geometry) is a polygon with four equal sides and angles. It did not say anything that the square should be desgined without any trees or that it should be empty!
Where are the answers?!
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has a large number of specialised means for the word ‘square’ and no. 12(a) is:
a. An open space or area (approximately quadrilateral and rectangular) in a town or city, enclosed by buildings or dwelling-houses, esp. of a superior or residential kind, freq. containing a garden or laid out with trees, etc.; more generally, any open space resembling this, esp. one formed at the meeting or intersection of streets; (also) the group of houses surrounding an area of this kind. Also attrib.
a1684 J. Evelyn Diary ann. 1680 (1955) IV. 199 Going early from his Lordships house in the Square of St. James’s.
1687 A. Lovell tr. J. de Thévenot Trav. into Levant ii. 79 There are many squares in Ispahan, but of all, that which is called the Meidan‥is the greatest and finest place in the World.
So the answer is that historically a ‘square’ of this type is normally has ‘containing a garden or laid out with trees’. I think (1) this sense of the word ‘square’ must have come into English from French – though the French word for them is ‘place’ (as in Place Royale) (2) but the idea of making urban squares came from Italy (where they are called piazzas) (3) I think St James’s Square may have been the first place in England to be called a ‘square’
Regarding fountains (1) it is very common for them not work (2) unless they are something fabulous, they are not enough to make a bad place into a good place.
Regarding Tianjin Central Cultural Square (1) one has to wonder what is ‘cultural’ about it (2) it would be interesting to know whether the usage increases when the the fountain is operational (3) it looks as though the space is much busier in the old photograph – do you know if this is correct? It could be that traffic has cut it off.
Comment by Tom Turner — July 30, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
A gardener whorked in this park came to talk with me when I took photos in the square, he told me that, the square was made by government with their stupid idea and they put all the money on changing the pavement to a new one and remove the trees. The fountain almost never work when it was built, only in the government activity occasion!
The Square has NO transport function now, cycleing is prohibitived there.
This park is almost the most important park in Tianjin because its location and hisroty. But, could you find anything related to its history from the photos. Also, they waste too much money on maintain the recent design. During my watching for a week, everyday, the gardeners working in the park is over 10%. I will write another post on the garden work in another blog post.
Comment by Jerry — July 31, 2011 @ 2:03 am
Can you find anything relating to the history of Tianjin Central Cultural Square in libraries or on old maps or elsewhere? I am wondering if (1) there used to be more facilities and amenities (eg a cafe, childrens’ play, seating etc) (2) if there used to be better access to the space (eg the roads round the space used to be narrower and with less traffic).
Comment by Tom Turner — July 31, 2011 @ 3:36 am
I doubt that there is an eastern tradition of labyrinths, however geometrically the ‘square’ would be perfect. [ http://maccandace.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dsc_0008.jpg ]
Comment by Christine — July 31, 2011 @ 5:37 am
The fountain in Tianjin Central Cultural Square could have been made as a labyrinth, as well as a fountain, but I guess this symbol would have been too Christian for the authorities. Religion should not be nationalised.
Comment by Tom Turner — July 31, 2011 @ 7:07 am
It would be interesting to know when the re-design of the Cultural Square took place, whether other contemporary events and political developments in China could be thought to have influenced it, and urban open space policy in general. As a further point, there is a category of urban open spaces that could be classed as “Political/Religious Open Spaces” They are not designed to be used on a daily basis, but are reserved for – for example – annual events that are to do with political or religious ceremonies. Because of the nature of the ceremonies these spaces are generously dimensioned. Would the Cultural Square possibly fit into this category?
Comment by Lawrence — August 2, 2011 @ 5:06 am
Re Tom, it is a good idea to find some old maps of the park. From the first master plan ( aerial perspective) It is clear that the original sapces, facilities and settings were more interesting than they are now.
I agree with Lawrence’s idea: the new park is for government use ( sometime) they need the central space to have a meeting one time a year, then they decide to cut the trees and build the empty ‘cultural square’.
So, most of the POS are used by government person, not the common people- It maybe a habit of Chinese! Government’s job is not serving for public, but controling them. Of course, the POSs are not built for public, but for government themseflves!
Comment by Jerry — August 2, 2011 @ 7:12 am
Lawrence, I agree that the category of political spaces may exist – but don’t you think it is rather wasteful to have a space which is only used once a year? My idea is that as well as being designed for everyday use, many urban spaces should also be designed for a very special event. A famous example of this is the Palio di Siena.
Jerry, the arrangement you identify in modern China may relate to the arrangement in old China. I believe they did not make public open spaces in walled cities, partly because they were afraid of them being used for disruptive meetings. But somebody told me I was wrong about this and that there used to be multi-purpose market squares in old Chinese cities. I will need to check my source.
Comment by Tom Turner — August 2, 2011 @ 7:50 pm