239

* Prof.D.Sc. Ph.D.Arch.zbigniewk.zuziak, institute ofCities andregionsDesign, Faculty ofArchitecture,CracowUniversityofTechnology.

zbigniEw k. zuziak*

homo luDEns anD thE noDEs oF urbanity. PLACeS,MAPS,MeTAPHorS

HoMoLUDenSiWĘzŁYMieJSkoŚCi. MieJSCA,MAPY,MeTAForY

A b s t r a c tTheauthordiscussestheinterrelationshipsbetweenplayandtheartofurbanismfo-cusingontheclusterofnodalplacescalledhere“nodesofurbanity”.At theback-groundofHuizinga’stheoryofHomo ludens asculturalcomponent,theanalysisofthesefociofurbanlifeseemtohaveexplanatoryvalueforarchitecturalandanthro-pologicaltheoriesofthe“LudicCity”.Themainpointsofthisconceptualframeworkareillustratedwithtwocasesfromthecityofkrakow.

Keywords: urbanism, architecture of the city, place, nodal places, nodes of urbanity, urban anthropology

S t r e s z c z e n i eAutorprowadzirozważanianatematwzajemnychzwiązkówmiędzygrąasztukąurbanistycznąkoncentrującuwagęnaskupiskachmiejscwęzłowychnazwanychtu„węzłamimiejskości”.WświetleteoriiHuizinganatematHomo ludens,igryjakokluczowego komponentu kultury, analiza tego rodzaju skupisk życia miejskiegowydaje sięmiećniemaływalor interpretacyjnydla architektonicznych i antropo-logicznychteorii„Miasta Ludycznego”.głównetezymetodologicznychkoncepcjitegorodzajuanalizzilustrowanodwomaprzykładamizkrakowa.

Słowa kluczowe: urbanistyka, architektura miasta, miejsce, węzły miejskości, antro-pologia miasta

240

1. Introduction

Thetitleofthispaperannouncestwooftheauthor’spointsinthediscussiononthecon-notationsoftheplay-elementinthecontemporarytheoryofurbanism–withparticularrefer-encetothetheoriessomehowrelatedtorossi’stheoryknownas“thearchitectureofthecity”[8].ThefirstreferstotheurbanisticimplicationsofHuizinga’sfamoustheoryontheroleofplayinthedevelopmentofculture[6].Thesecondpointreferstoroleofmetaphorintheartofurbanisticandanthropologicalinterpretationsoftheclustersofnodalplaceswherewecanobservethecondensationof“ludicenergy”.inurbanliterature,itisassumedthatthisenergyexemplifies theessenceofurbancultureaswellasculturalchangesresultingfromrecenttechnologicaldevelopmentsandurbanmarketing.Thesechanges,inturn,stronglyimpingeupontheimageofthearchitectureofthecontemporarycity–particularlythosewhicharemetropolitan.

Thetextismadeupofsketchynoteslaidoutintwonarrativelayers.Thefirstcontainsreferencestothetheoreticalcomponentsofurbanismsignificanttotheunderstandingofthearchitecturalandanthropologicalaspectsoftheprocessknownasthe“ludificationofurbanculture”.Here,theauthoroutlineshisconceptofthe“nodesofurbanity”focusingonitsspe-cifictypologicalcategoriesthatcanberegardedas“thedomainsofcontemporaryhomolu-dens”.inthesecondlayer,thisanalyticalconceptisexemplifiedbytwocasesfromkrakow.

2. Urbanity and urbanistic construction – frameworks and places of play

Motto:“Aspectreishauntingtheworld–thespectreofplayfulness.Wearewitnessingaglobal“ludificationofculture”.Sincethe1960s,inwhichtheword“ludic”becamepopularineuropeandtheUnitedStatestodesignateplayfulbehaviourandartefacts,playfulnesshasincreasinglybecomeamainstreamcharacteristicofourculture.Perhapsthefirstthingthatcomestomindinthiscontextistheimmensepopularityofcomputergames,which,asfarasglobalsalesareconcerned,havealreadyoutstrippedHollywood.”

(ValerieFrissen, Jos deMul and Joostraessens,HomoLudens2.0:Play,Media andidentity).

Urbanityandplaybelongamongthefundamentalconceptsofculture.AsemphasizedbyHuizinga,playisanessentialfunctionofculture.Hishomo ludens[5,9]symbolizestheuni-versalcodesofurbanritualsandbehaviouralpatternswhichhavetobeanalysedinordertoexplaintheculturallogicofurbanform.Therefore,thistheory,althoughfirstpublishedover70yearsago,stillinspiresurbanistslookingforabridgebetweenthetwocurrentsofresearchontheculturalnatureofthecity:anthropologicalstudiesonthecomplexityandsubtletyofurbanlifestylesandthearchitecturalanalysisoftheirspatialsettings.

Contemporaryanthropologicalresearchonplay–anditsroleinthedevelopmentofcul-turalformsoflife–providesyetanotherfieldwherewecandiscusstherelationshipsbetweenurbanism,artandculture.inthelightofcountlessstatementsthaturbanismisinadeepcrisis,andevidenceofchaoticurbanandsuburbandevelopmentwhich,unfortunately,confirmthisdiagnosis,discussingurbanismasanartismorethanabstract.itcaneasilyberegardedasir-ritating.onthegroundsofurbanistictheory,however,wecanstillfindconvincingargumentsrationalisingtheuseofterm:“artofurbanism”[8,7].inthisargumentationasignificantroleisplayedbythepostulatewhichreferstoquiteadefinitionofurbanismbasedontheanalogy

241

tooneofthemostcommondefinitionsofarchitecture.namely–similarlytoarchitecture–wecandefineurbanismastheartof“shaping/forming”thespace”–specifically:urbanspace.Between these twobranchesofcommondisciplines,however, therearesignificantdifferences.Asaresult,thetiesofthis“urbanisticbranch”withartareweakeranditsartisticidentitylessclear.Wearetalkinghereaboutdifferencesin:a)thescaleofdesignedterritoryonwhichdesignsolutionsareexpected,b) the levelofcomplexityofadesignedsystem,c)thedegreeofdependenceonpolitics,d)thescaleofpotentialconflictsgeneratedbythedesignsituation,ande)thecomplexityofadecision-makingsystemresultingfromthelargenumberof“actors” involved in thedecision-makingprocessandcomplicated–andoftennontransparent–relationshipsbetweenthem.itisjustbecauseofthislast–let’scallitthe“urbanisticdecision-makinggame”–thatwereflectontheanthropologicalaspectsof therelationshipsbetweenurbanism,cultureandthegame.

TheLudicCityisbecomingafashionablethemeforinternationalconferencesonurban-ismarchitectureandurbananthropology.Thisurbanisticidea,however,doesnotseemtobeclearenoughforustooperationalizeitonalargerscaleatthemoment.inthefastgrowingliteratureonthissubjectwecanfindattemptstocombineanthropologicalstreamsofurbanresearchwithenvironmentalpsychologystudiesandtheirarchitecturalandurbanisticcon-notationsinitiatedbythefamouskevinLynch’simageoftheCity.Therearealsoexplicitreferences toHuizinga. ina sense, the roleofplay inurbananthropologypointedoutbyHuizinga’stheoryofHomo ludensistakenupbyQuentinStevens.inthesecondchapterofhisbook–“TheLudicCity.exploringthepotentialofpublicspaces”–hediscusses“theanalytical concept of play” [9, p. 27] referring to the theoreticalwritings of such distin-guishedthinkersreflectingondiversefacetsofthephenomenonofplayintheurbanrealmasBenjamin,Lefebvre,Sennett,Bourdieu,andgoffman.Stevensalsoprovidesanextensivecasestudyontheelementsofthe“ludicspaces”intheCBDofMelbourne,Australia.inhisanalysisof“thesocialdimensionsofurbanspace”heusesanalyticalunitsas:“paths”,“inter-sections”,“boundaries”,“thresholds”,“backdrops”,and“props”.referencestotherelation-shipsbetweenmorphologicalthinkingandthementalmappingdiscoveredbykevinLyncharequiteobvious.

Letusconsidernowtheother“commondenominators”ofplay,urbanism,andart.Theseare“urbanisticconstruction”,place,maps,andmetaphors.ourfirststepshouldbeareflec-tiononthrarchitecturalperspectiveofurbanismandtheanthropologicalviewofurbanity. Paradoxicallyenough,thesemanticrelationshipsbetweenurbanityandurbanism,andtheirconsequencesfor theareaof theirrespectiveprofessionalandacademicactivities,arenotobvious.Formanyurbanists,thenotionofurbanityisstillassociatedwithbehaviouralpat-terns,lifestyles,contactsandotherformsofactivitiesaswellastheirenvironmentalsettingsaffectingthequalityoflifeinthepopulatedterritorywhichconformsthecriteriaestablishedin such“canonical”definitionsof thecityas theonegivenbyWeber [12]orWirth [13].Thesesociologicalandanthropologicaldefinitionscorrespondedwiththearchitecturalviewof the city.According to the classical european tradition, dominated by the architecturalperspective,urbanismasanacademicdisciplineisviewedmainlyastheartofbuildingandrebuildingcities(Städtebau)supportedbyrelevanttheoriesborrowedfromscienceandthehumanities.inurbanism,thisconceptofcitybuildingisassociatedwiththecreationofacul-turalmeaningful and functional environment hospitable to inhabitants and other users oftheterritoryorganisedandmanagedwithrespecttotheAncientgreekideaofthepolisandthelaterpoliticalconceptsofurbandemocracyaswellasthenotionofthepublicgood.in

242

243

amorecontemporaryversion,however,wecouldmodifytheabovedefinitionbyaccentuat-ingthewide-rangingcompetencesofthemainactors–designers,plannersandotherdecisionmakers–participatinginthecomplexgamecalledthedevelopmentandredevelopmentofphysicalurbanstructures.

Aswitharchitecture,theconceptualapparatusofurbanismisstructuredaroundsuchba-sictermsasform,function,construction.Thesefundamentalconceptscanbealsoregardedasdesigncriteriaformulatedinprofessionalstandardsvis a visthewidelyrecognizedvaluesandqualitiesoftheurbanenvironment.Fromthisperspective,inametaphoricalsense,theurbanistic ideaof thespatialordercanbeexplainedas thepostulate to regard thecityasalargescalearchitecturalstructure–the“architecture of the city”[8]–madeofinheritedandnewarchitecturalobjectsandlandscapes,withadistinctmorphologyaswellasfunctionalat-tributesandmeaningssatisfyingstandardsofagivenurbanculture.inotherwords,urbanismistheartandscienceofcreatingspatialframeworksfordiverseformsofurbanlifeaccordingtotheprinciplesreflectingvalueshighlyrespectedbythepopulationofagiventerritory.inthecontemporarytheoryofurbanism,however,theabovedefinitionsandapproaches–aswellasclassical ideason thespatialorder–arestronglychallengedby the“actorrelatedapproach”tourbanspace,theideaoffluidspaceinanetworkedsociety[3]aswellasnewarchitecturalconceptsofurbanspatialstructures.

3. The nodes of urbanity and the metaphor of mapping

intheurbanisticliterature,anthropological,sociologicalandgeographicalexplanationsofurbanphenomenaarestronglyrelatedtotheresearchontheculturalnatureofthecityandcultural attributesofurbanity.For these reasons, interactionsbetween the formsofurbanplayandthespatialformsofurbanitydeservemoreattention.inparticularly,thispostulatereferstotheplay-elementinthenodesofurbanity:placesclusteredinthenodalpointsofurbannetworks.Supportedby the analytical toolsofurbangeographyandother relevantdisciplines,urbanismhelpsustounderstandwhyurbanlifeismorevibrantincertainplacesthaninothers.Forthispurpose,wehavetocarryoutanumberofcartographicoperations:1)tocomparetheconfigurationoftheseplaceswiththelayersofurbanrealitythatcanbereadfromtherespectivemap/maps,2)toworkoutthemethodofmappingrelevantlayoutsofactivitiesandbehaviouralpatternsofplayingactors, and3) tocompare the resultsof theaboveanalysis.

Theideaofurbanitynodeschangestheanalyticalperspectiveandthefocusoftheresearchonurbancentresborrowingcertainelementsfromtheapproachesadoptedinthenetworkthe-oryofthecityandpayingmoreattentiontotheanthropologicalelementsoftheanalysis.Thenode of urbanitycanbedefinedastheplaceoraclusterofplaceswhich,becauseofits/theirac-cessibilityandotherhighlyappreciatedvalues,havekeysignificanceforurbanlife.Thisdefini-tionimpliesthatthemeaningofthistermcoversamuchbroaderareathansuchbasicurbanisticconceptsas:citycentres,districtcentresandthelike.Fortheurbanplanningmethodologythequestionsariseatthispoint:Whatistheroleofurbannodesintheconstruction/reconstructionofurbanform?Whatistheroleoftheplay-componentinthearchitectureandanthropologyofurbanplaces?Toanswertheseletusgiveakick-starttoourimaginationandlookattheplay-placerelationsfromaperspectivesimilartothosewecanfindinfamousliteraryfictiononthemagicofmappingthecityandmulti-layeredrealitiescodedinmaps.

244

TheBorgesmetaphorofamapor, ifyoulike,Calvino’sdreamoftheperfectmap,aswellasthecartographicdramaturgyplottedbyHouellbecqinhis“La carte et le territoiere”couldbe inspiring for tracinggeometrical regularities between the anthropology of place andthe architecture of play.Twoplacesfromkrakowhavebeenchosenheretoillustratethemainpointsofthispaper.Theseare:theSmallMarketSquareandanewlycreatedpublicplacelinkedwithanarchitecturallandmarkcalledkantor’sCricoteka.inasense,thesetwoexamplesaretheoppositesofthetypologicalspectrumofurbanheritagenodes.Buttheyalsohavesomecommondenominators.Bothcouldbeusedasthethemesfortheinterdisciplinaryresearchprojectscarriedoutfromarchitecturalandanthropologicalperspectiveanddevotedtochangesinpublicplaces–withaparticularreferencetoheritageandtourismaspectsoftheseformsofculturalurbanenvironment.

4. Poetics of place: two cases

AlthoughovershadowedbythelifeontheneighbouringMainMarketSquare,TheSmallMarketissosaturatedwithdiverseactivitiesthatitcouldbecomefascinatingasubjectofajointcasestudyforarchitectsandanthropologists.Fromurbanisticperspective,theanalyti-calframeworkofsucharesearchprojectshouldbefocusedontherelationsbetweenculturalandspatialpoliciesandthemanagementofthepublicspaceintheculturalenvironmenthav-inghighvaluesofurbanisticheritageandastrongtourismcomponent.

TogetherwithothersquaresofTheoldTown,TheSmallMarketbelongstotheclusterofplaceswhichfunctionasthecoreofthehistoriccitycentreand–atleastsymbolically–theverycentreoftheCityofkrakow.Until2007,thegroundsofthispublicspacehadbeenusedasacarpark.Thatyear,however,coincidedwiththe750thanniversaryoftheactgrantingthecity’srightstothemajorsettlementofkrakow.Tocelebratethisevent,thelocalgovernmentdecidedto“modernize”thisplace.Theconservationproject,workedoutbythearchitecturalofficeguidedbyProfessorAndrzejkadłuczka1,wasimplementedasanelementofthelargerprogramme,approvedbytheCityCouncil,andgearedtorevitalizingthehistoriccoreandotherareasdesignatedasdeservingpublicintervention.Asaresult,thesquarechangeditsimagesosignificantlythattodayitcanberegardedassecondstageofthe“city’sopenairtheatre”.

inthemorningsunthetectonicoftheSmallMarketSquaremayrecalltheCanaletto’spaintings illustrating thebaroquepublicspacesofDresden. in theplaybetween lightsadshadows,aswell as themassesand linear formsdesignating the rhythmsofarchitecturalmodules,wecanreadouttheelementsofartisticexpressionsosignificanttothecomposi-tionalthinkingoftheitalianmaster.Alsohere,thearchitecturallanguageoftheplacecreatesahospitableenvironmentforurbanplay.Thespaceofthemarketisanopeningforactorsandthewholespaceseemstobeexpectingastagedirectorwhowillcreativelyorchestratetheiractions.Thequestionis,however,willtheseforthcomingevents,andtheirmeansofexpres-sion,correspondharmoniouslywiththescenicbackground?

Theprogrammeofthesespecialeventsisquiteintensiveanddiversified.Sometimes,onecouldhavetheimpressionthattheplaceisoverloadedwithperformancesandcommercial

1 TheprojectreceivedageneralPublicAwardin thecompetitionorganizedbyTheCityanddailynewspaper“Gazeta Krakowska”(“Krakow Newspaper”).

245

activities initiatedasacombinationofurbanmarketing tools, instrumentsofculturalandeducationalpolicyaswellasactivities,likee.g.:beerfestivals,areprobablythoughtofsim-ply to repair thecity’sbudget.Throughout theseason, theSmallMarketchanges its facealmosteveryday.Apparently,tradefairs,particularlyfoodmarkets(ill.1),aretoberegardedaseventscorrespondingwiththehistoricaltraditionoftheplace.Thepointis,however,thatsomeoftheseeventsarearrangedinastylewhichdoesn’tseemappropriateforsuchapres-tigiousplacein“ThekingsCityofkrakow”.Fortunately, themajorityofthehappeningsplayedonTheSmallMarketcanberegardedastheexamplesoftheeffectiveandaccurateimage building techniques.Among themost successful cultural events are: jazz concerts(ill.2),streettheatrespectacles(ill.3),streetballets,andlessonsofcommonsingingandthelike.Wealsohaveinnovativeexperimentsperformedhere.oneoftheseinterestingeventswastheMicroparkexhibitedat theSmallMarketSquarelastMay(ill.4).TheprototypeofthismodulararrangementwascommissionedbythekrakowTechnologyParkandmadeundertheframeworkoftheprojectnamed“SmartkoM“.

As in other historic places, the cultural identity ofThe SmallMarket Square is rich,diversifiedandmultilayered.Apart fromthespecialeventsprogrammedhereby the localgovernment,thetimeofthisplace2hastobereadoutbystillother,andprobablyevenmoresignificant, “anthropological layers”.oneof these iscomposedof smaller scaleactivitieswhichcouldalsobestudiedasinterestingpatternsofplayandjoyinducedbythearchitec-turalenvironmentandstimulatedbyitscommercialside.Forobviousreasons,thisenviron-mentofplayisdominatedbythebehaviourofindividualvisitorsandtouristgroups:flockedalongthetwolinesofoutdoorbistrosandpubsandspreadoutonthefloorofthesquare.observedfromtheanthropologicalpointofview,theirinteractionsrevealthe“othersideoftheform-functionrelations”.Lookingmoredeeplyintothecommuniquéofthesepatternswecanrealizethattheirambivalenceescapesfromtherigidevaluativecriteriaandterminologi-calapparatususedintheroutinepracticeofurbandesignandplanning.

Thenodeofurbanitychosenasasecondexampleisalsolocatedinahistoricpartoftheinnercityofkrakow.itistheareawherewecanobserve,experienceandenjoy,aclusterofplacesgivinganewlifetothepartoftheVistulariverfrontsituatedbetweenPilsudskiBridgeandSilesianinsurgents’Bridge.Thisnewconstellationofspotsforleisureandcultureactivitiesbelongstothecollectionofthemostfashionablesitesinthecity.Hereyoucanfindthosewho,tiredofthehistoriccoreovercrowdedbynoisytouristsandalmostDisney-likeatmosphereoftheareaaroundBroadStreet,flocktothespotswheretheycanenjoythepleas-ureofsocialcontactscoupledwiththemagicoftheformerindustrialsitesandpicturesquepanoramasoftwohistoricdistricts:kazimierzandoldPodgórze.Amongthesemagicspots,theareaaroundtheCricotekaoccupiesaspecialposition.Thisdistinctivearchitecturalformcouldberegardedasaniconicbuildingcreatinganewandattractiveimageforthepublicspaceswhicharenewlyemergingas a resultof theurbanpolicy to revitalize theVistulariverfront.Undoubtedly,thisisanoutcomeofasuccessfularchitecturedesignstrategytoadapttheoldindustrialbuildingintoamuseumandperformingartcentredevotedtothecrea-tivelegacyofTadeuszkantor.

TheCricotekaCentreisaplugged-inplaceintwosenses:1)aesthetic,asanartisticmes-sageandasignofthesemioticmetaphorofthemap,and2)functional,asaplacehavingits

2 ThisisthereferencetothebookofkevinLynchtitled:“What time is this place”.

246

usevalue,mostlyduetoitsaccessibilityandculturalprogramme.ApartfromtheCricoteka,thisnodeincludesanewclusterof livelyplacesofoldPodgórzeand–ontheothersideoftheVistulariver–placesalongMostowaStreet,uptoWolnicaSquare,andMuseumofUrbanengineeringinkazimierz.Thelivelinessofthisarearesultsalsofromauniquelyat-tractivelocationandthespillovereffectofarelativelynewconstructionofthefootbridgecalled“Bernatka”.ThepositiveimpactofthispedestrianbridgeonthesurroundingareaissosignificantthatwecanevenrecognizetheplacesgroupedaroundthisconstructionasnewnodeofurbanityinthehistoriccentreoftheCityofkrakow.Lookingonthekazimierzsidefromtheterracesmartlyarrangedbelowthe“CricotekaBridge”wecanfacetheambiguityofunspokenquestions.Likeinthe“The Death Class”,wecansensetheplaybetweenthepast,identifiedwiththehistoriccomponentsofkazimierzpanorama,andtheunknownfutureexemplifiedbytheformerindustrialsitesstillqueuingforredevelopment.

5. Summary

Playandplace–keyconceptsofcultureandtheartofurbanism–aredesignatedthemaincompositionalaxisofthispaper.itwasalsoassumedthatthesetwotermscanberegardedasaninterestingthematicaxisofthereflectiononthe“commondenominator”ofthetwomaincurrentsofcontemporaryurbanisticthoughts:anthropologicalandarchitectural.

Themethodologicalconceptoutlinedhere,called“nodes of urbanity”by theauthor,hasbothstructuralandanthropologicalconnotations.itreferstothenetworktheoryofthecitybecausethesecluster-placesareregardedasthenodesofurbannetworks.emphasizingarchitecturalandurbanisticperspectivewecanregardthe“nodes of urbanity”assignifi-cantplacesinthe“urbanistic construction”oftheareadesignatedforagivendevelopmentprojectoraplanningdocument.Semantically, the term“urbanistic construction”seemsevenmoreappropriatebecauseitalsobearsthesuggestionthatinthetimeofthepolarizedand“deconstructed city”theurbanisticprofessionshouldplayamoreprofoundroleintheintegrationoffragmentedspaces.This,inturn,mayalsoimplythaturbanistsandarchitectsshouldfocusontheseplaceswhich–intermsofthelifestyleandbehaviouralsettings–aremoreattractivethanothers,andtherefore,havestrongerintegrativepotentials.Tofulfilthismission,however,architectsandurbanistsshouldopentheirprofessionalsensitivitytothenewsocialphenomenacharacteristicofthe“physiology”,“anatomy”and“physiognomy”ofurbanplaces.

r e f e r e n c e s

[1] Alexander Ch., Generative Codes: the Path to Building Welcoming, Beautiful, Sustainable Neighborhood, [in:] HaasTigran,(ed.),2008,New Urbanism and Beyond. Designing Cities for the Future, rizzoli,newYork,2008.

[2] Borges, J. L., “Museum, on Exactitude in Science”, [in:]Collected Fictions (trans.A.Hurley),grovePress,newYork1998,325–327.

[3] Castells M., The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age. Blackwell,CambridgeMA,oxfordUk,1996(Polishedition:Społeczeństwo sieci.WydawnictwonaukowePWn,Warszawa,2007).

247

[4] HannerzU.,Exploring the City. Inquires Toward an Urban Anthropology.ColombiaUniversityPress,1980 (Polishedition:Odkrywanie miasta. Antropologia obszarów miejskich. WydawnictwoUniwersytetuJagiellońskiego,kraków,2006).

[5] Homo Ludens 2.0: Play, Media and Identity,ValerieFrissen, JosdeMulandJoostraessens.

[6] Huizinga J., A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. routledge and kegan Paul,London,1980(reprint;firstpublishedbyroutledgein1949;firstpublishedingermeninSwitzerland).

[7] MonestiroliA.,Tryglif i metopa. Dziewięć wykładów o architekturze, Politechnikakrakowskaim.Tadeuszakościuszki,kraków,2009.

[8] rossi a. The Architecture of the City,MiTPress.Cambridge,MA.,1984.[9] StevensQ.,The Ludic City. Exploring the Potentials of Public Spaces, routledge,

Taylor&Francisgroup,London,newYork,2007.[10] Turchi,P.,Maps of the Imagination, The Writer as Cartographer,TrinityUniversity

Press,2007.[11] Vrbančić,M.,A Dream of the Perfect Map – Calvino’s Invisible Cities,Thezoneand

zones–radicalSpatialityinourTimes,no.2–Year2,06/2012–LC.4.[12] WeberM.,The City, 1958(original:1921).[13] WirthL.,Urbanism As A Way of Life.in:AJS(AmericanJournalofSociology),44,

p.1–24,1938.[14] zuziakz.k.,Zmiany strukturalne w miastach polskich na początku XXI w. Między

sztuką budowania miast a polityką przestrzenną. (Structural Changes in the Polish Cities at the Beginning of the21-st Century. Between the Art of Building Cities and the Spatial Policy) [in:]HalickaA.(ed.),Budownictwo na obszarach zurbanizowanych. Nauka, praktyka, perspektywy,PolitechnikaLubelska;s.165–176.Lublin,2014.

[15] zuziakz.k.,O tożsamości urbanistyki. (On the Identity of Urbanism).WydawnictwoPolitechnikikrakowskiejim.Tadeuszakościuszki,kraków,2008.