Advertisement

Landscape Models of Enhancing the Inherited City Identity

  • Sanja GašparovićEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

The role of landscape planning in preserving the city’s identity is researched. Heritage landscape is considered a concept of integrally planned landscape, recognized as an important city’s identity factor. The landscape has always played a significant role in forming the image of Zagreb. Its strong landscape strategy determined by twentieth-century urban planning gradually loses its clarity over the past decades. The research starts from the thesis that the concept of an integral landscape image should be considered as urban planning heritage that contributes to the preservation of the city’s recognizability. It is necessary to determine the landscape models of its revitalization, adaptation and improvement. Comparative analysis of contemporary landscape strategies of European cities resulted by the identification of landscape model reflected in:
  • recognizing landscape as an important formative element of the city;

  • overcoming the boundaries between the city and the region and their territorial intertwining;

  • determining the starting point of the landscape strategy for the whole city level;

  • networking of unbuilt spaces into a recognizable system of green infrastructure;

  • ‘conquering’ brownfield areas for new public open spaces;

  • including the dynamic features of natural systems in planning process.

By applying a landscape model on the example of Zagreb and other cities, it is possible to protect and enhance their recognizable landscape image, or inherited identity.

Keywords

Landscape heritage Landscape planning City image Landscape urbanism City strategies 

References

  1. Beatley T (2012) Green cities of Europe: global lessons on green urbanism. Island Press, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2006) Green infrastructure linking landscapes and communities. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B, Matuhina N (2012) Landscape urbanism—new spatial paradigm. Prostor 20(43):106–117Google Scholar
  4. Corner J (2006) Terra Fluxus. In: Waldheim C (ed) The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp 21–33Google Scholar
  5. Czechowski D, Hauck T, Hausladen G (eds) (2015) Revising green infrastructure: concepts between nature and design. CRC Press Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  6. Falleth E, Saglie IL (2012) Planning a Green Oslo. In: Luccarelli M, Gunnar Røe P (eds) Green Oslo, visions, planning and discourse. University of Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. Gašparović S, Sopina A (2018) The Role of landscape in planning the City of Zagreb from the early 20th to the early 21st century. Prostor 28(55):132–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jorgensen K et al (eds) (2016) Mainstreaming landscape through the European landscape convention. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Kleinebrahm T, Lipsius K (2015) Essen: a green city of North-Rhine Westphalia. In: Paper presented at 6th global forum on urban resilience and adaptation. BonGoogle Scholar
  10. Kong L (2012) Break the green belt? The differences between green belt and its alternative green wedge—a comparative study of London and Stockholm. Master of science programme in urban planning, Karlskrona. Available via Diva-portal. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:832039/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed on 15 Jun 2018
  11. Konijnendij CC (2010) Green cities, competitive cities—promoting the role of green space. Paper presented at IFPRA world congress—city Branding, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  12. Littke H (2015) Planning the green walkable city: conceptualizing values and conflicts for urban green space strategies in Stockholm. Sustainability 7:11306–11320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lendholt W (1970) Funkcije mestnega zelenja. In: Ogrin D (ed) Zbornik Zelenje v urbanem okolju. LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  14. Luccarelli M, Gunnar Røe P (eds) (2016) Green Oslo: visions, planning and discourse. Routledge, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. The MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Mc Harg I (1969) Design with nature. Natural History Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson A, Malarstrand N (n.d.) Stockholm—city of water. Available via University of Washington. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/open2100/Resources/1_OpenSpaceSystems/Open_Space_Systems/Stockholm_Case_Study.pdf. Accessed on 15 Jun 2018
  18. Ståhle A (2002) Urban planning for a quality dense green structure. Paper presented at Stockholm sociotop map and park programme, green structures and urban planning 6th management committee meeting and working group meetings, Milan, Italy, 6–8 Oct 2002Google Scholar
  19. Timmermans W et al (eds) (2015) The rooted city: European capitals and their connection with the landscape. Blauwdruk Publishers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  20. Waldheim C (2006) Landscape urbanism. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations