The concept of heterotopia has been introduced to the architectural world in the late sixties, but to only a small circle of individuals who have been present at Foucault’s lecture at the Cercle d’etudes architecturales, only to be revived twenty years later in a journal called Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité. Ever since, there have been studies in fields of geography, urban theories and sociology on that subject, but it was never fully understood or interpreted. As contemporary urban (as well as political, sociological, geographical, philosophical) space has more similarities with heterotopias than any other spatial phenomena, it is important to draw the line between what heterotopias are and aren’t. Now, more than ever in our history, we are closer to the understanding of the concept itself. The aim of this paper is to try to clarify in what form or shape the urban heterotopias (especially cities) of the future will be and if there is a future for heterotopia (smart city, Junkspace, non-place)? More importantly: are future heterotopias political or virtual spaces (or both?) and will they have the power (if they already don’t) of changing the models of our social behaviour? If the concept of identity is the initial point in understanding heterotopia, will it and how change in future?
Heterotopia, Foucault, future, urban space, social behaviour, identity
Every form of social activity rests on an ideological basis, in a way that ideology becomes a form of social and symbolic production of thoughts, values, beliefs and at the end of the production - space. Social power, identity and capital all initiate various manifestations in space, sometimes affirmative, but often pathological, which are difficult to repair. Space, in this context, becomes a representation of different ideologies. Henri Lefebvre argues how space has an extremely ideological and political dimension and how it is an ideological and political product, based on social relations. However, ideological manipulation of space is not a phenomenon of the modern era, it exists as does the space itself or the use of space for political, demagogic or any other ideological purpose. The ideological marking of space or the “spatial ideological encryption’’ becomes a process, having its own phases and determinants, in which the ideological function of space (architectural or urban) is activated as the ultimate and reversible outcome. The influence of different methodological frameworks in the research of the social phenomena of 20th century, have opened up issues of socioanthropological problematization of space. Right of the city is the adopting of a modern, activist, ideological attitude that are leading the battle with the dominant ideological occupiers of space. This paper examines space and ideology relations, their functions and their ultimate outcomes.
Ideology,space,ideological function, structuralism, the commons
This paper examines the relation between open public spaces and citizens on the example of the historical core of Podgorica, Mirko’s town. The main goal is to identify the mutual influence of citizens and development on public open spaces. The spatial structure in the historical context of the chosen location was analyzed with an emphasis on the impact of public urban space on the quality of interpersonal relations. The hypothesis to be set refers to the direct impact of the urban space on the quality of interpersonal relations. Indirect goal of the paper is to explore possibilities and needs of a citizen in relation to the open public space and to emphasize the development direction of the open public space, which must remain open to constant changes, where each of its users should participate together with the planners. The results of the survey indicate a negative trend of traffic, inadequate architectural treatment of buildings the design of which is subordinate to the needs of fast economic profit, as well as problematic compositional aspects of public spaces that do not contribute to the development of social relations and healthy - active way of life.
Public open space, Independence Square, Freedom Street, social relations, healthy city, sustainable city