ICAHM 2012 ANNUAL MEETING

Cuzco, Peru 27 - 30 November 2012

PROTECTIVE DISTANCE ZONES AROUND ARCHITECTURAL / ARCHAELOGICAL MONUMENTS TO NEW TALL BUILDINGS.
SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Siegmar Thomas; Dresden University of Technology, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Dresden D-01062 Email: siegmar.thomas@mailbox.tu-dresden.de

1 Landform Basis of human perception and cognition

of landscape and urban scenery, and of urban spatial planning
1.1 Landform short description 1.2 Perception and cognition of landscape 1.3 Protection of monuments and their surroundings

2 Landform + built environment: architectural / archaeological monuments

2.1 Maximum height of new planned high rise buildings differently close to monuments 2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture 1

LANDFORM - a basis of
landscape ecology, ecological network planning, historic urban landscape (HUL) and of human perception and cognition of landscape and urban scenery,

and therefore of urban / landscape planning and design.

2

1.1 Landform short description

(white)

elevations: remains of
upper plains; (areas of divergent slope curves [orthogonal trajectories of contour lines; not shown here])

(blue) complementary dendritic

depressions:
erosion channel network (sensu lato); (areas of convergent slope curves) contour lines 2.5 m )

_ _ _ deep line - - - catchment boundary

Fig. 1: Complementary elevationdepression land form

(Richter 1962; modified: Thomas 2007)

1.1 Landform short description

The most decisive characteristics of land forms are:: (i) Altitude difference of an area, e.g. a watershed (ii) Relief roughness (frequency of complementary elevation - depression forms)

The more extensive the roughness of terrain carving, the more diverse is landscape ecology, and the more diverse is also the scenery.
4

1.1 Landform short description

The complementary networks of elevations and depressions are the basic skeleton of important town planning areas, also for free open space and vegetation: 1.1 elevations: the dominant elevated free open space areas of dry vegetation complexes, for viewing over town; 1.2 lower depression areas: the network of green belts in cities, conurbations with natural indigenous vegetation, e.g. river forests near deep lines, streams
5

1.1 Landform short description

Table 1

Preference of high land form- and biodiversity for ecosystems and free open space!

Natural

Cultural Resources

Elevation network / hill ridge chains:

Protection of dry vegetation complexes Network of preferred areas for single public buildings, monuments, gardens, viewing areas over town, at least jetting out points

Complementary natural finger-like depression networks:

Network of green belts in cities, with natural indigenous vegetation, mainly near deep lines, never filling up / damming for gaining agricultural areas (exception: ponds) Historic architectural monuments should be protected by buffer zones within watersheds (up to ridge lines) against optical overlapping, outsized shapes, impairment of scenery

1.2 Perception and cognition of landscape

Objective aspects of perception and cognition allow descriptions of visible landscapes. Cognition and aesthetic assessments also contain inter-subjective and personal factors. The complex perception and experience (cognition) of the landscape depends on the landforms: (1) viewing (the sensory information) and (2) cognition (psychology of perception): (2.1) symptomatic information: understanding of symptoms of landscape characteristics that can not be recognized directly due to filter effects; (2.2) relics of former land use: historic cultural landscapes and town parts; (2.3) expression: initiating emotions (individual; inter-subjective); (2.4) symbolic meaning: indicates imaginations, ideas, theories, utopian pictures, ideals.

An overview about the characteristics for objective description and assessment of landscape scenes and urban forms is given in Fig. 2.

1.2 Perception and cognition of landscape

Filters of perception and cognition

Table 2 e.g., barriers of relief and e.g. buildings, obstructing the view e.g., power, frequency, distance of point or linear sources sources e.g., power and distance of odour origins e.g., plants, animals, clothing, materials e.g., very steep slope e.g., emotional, social, cultural-historic: knowledge; spirit of the age; normative regulations;

visual: aural: olfactory: haptic: kinesthetic: intellectual:

each varying due to innate, hereditary and learned associations and reactions; imaginations, ideas and theories.
8

1.2 Perception and cognition of landscape

Perception: Viewing the landscape scene and multi-sensory experience of the landscape (sensory information)

Table 3: Description and assessment of scenes as shown on the basic 2:3 matrix: V

f f fore-, m middle-, b background

(m,b) (f,m)

f
Vf

m
Vm

b
Vb

vertical visible ranges, surfaces, one behind the other; settlements and forest fringes; water areas (mirror effects)

3 to 5 (7) dominant single elements are (m,b) D immediately perceptible, more seem to be combined to a wall V moving waters, animals, (f,m)
9

Df

Dm

Db

1.2 Perception and cognition of landscape

Fig. 2: Perception and assessment of scenes by 7 vectors of space (distance, width, elevation), time (seasons), direction, dominants, historic places
10

1.2 Perception and cognition of landscape

So there are 7 vectors, describing the objective criteria for the sensory information according to space (i iii); dominant vertical objects, or areas (iv); direction of confined view (v); time (vi); places of historical interest (vii): (i) depth of view within view-sheds (f, m, b) (indicates length); (ii) horizontal angles of confined fields of view (width); (iii) vertical viewing angles (indicates height, not only the altitude difference in the view-shed in relationship to the distance of e.g. mountain ridges, but also the elevated surfaces of vegetation cover, or settlements above bare ground (V for vertical walls)); (iv) number of dominants D for each distance zone (i), viewing direction (v) and viewable valleys (ii); (v) direction (N, E, S, W); (vi) temporal vector, number of seasons according to climatic zones (one to four); (vii) historic sites.
11

1.3 Protection of monuments and their surroundings (free open space and low built up areas)
Visual relationships (due to landform/topography and buildings/built-up areas/infrastructure) are objective aspects of human perception on the one hand, and more inter-subjective and personal-subjective aspects of cognition on the other.
Main visual axes can exist along landform depressions/elevations (valleys/hill ridges), and building plots or between dominant natural or artificial landmarks, e.g. rock columns, tall/high rise buildings. Silhouette (horizontality with vertical accents) could mean space confirming ridges of elevated landforms or built-up areas, one behind the other, and natural or built vertical dominants. Silhouette is a natural and cultural complex, often dominated by landform (a town or settlement is floating on the earth surface waves, mainly by stronger landform diversity).

Recommended calculation principles for protective distance zones (free open space, flat buildings) between monuments and new (high rise) buildings in different land form positions are represented (Figure 3).
12

Free open space with vegetation in buffer zones around monuments or ensembles (protected inclusive parts of the surrounding urban cultural landscape)
Parts of the surrounding cultural landscape (agricultural areas, urban free open space, with only some low buildings) are to be protected around monuments (Von Taboritzki 2000). Which parts of the environment should be protected? - The areas that can potentially reduce or avoid threatening processes! The boundaries of these surrounding areas should be often those of the viewsheds / watersheds (the surrounding divides, ridge lines). This is valid for physical geographic reasons and also because of human's perceptibility of the scenery (viewing axes; inevitable optically free open spaces (Von Taboritzki 2000)). 13

2.1 Maximum height of new planned high rise buildings differently close to monuments

Recommended calculation principles for protective distance zones (free open space, flat buildings) between monuments and new (high rise) buildings in different land form positions are represented (Figure 3). The visual integrity should be protected by reducing the potential height of planned new high rise buildings in the immediate vicinity of monuments, valuable urban ensembles. Such new tall buildings should not exceed a certain height. This limitation of the height can be characterized through a certain angle from the horizontal basis of a monument / building ensemble to the highest top of (planned) new buildings / skyscrapers a.s.o. The problem of new planned buildings (mainly high rise ones) in the immediate vicinity to HUL should be discussed. It is mainly a matter of the protecting distance of new planned buildings to monuments / HUL. This is easily to describe by the angle between a horizontal base line and the viewing / sight line from HUL / monument to the top of the new object (Fig. 3).

14

2.1 Maximum height of new planned high rise Figure 3: close to monuments buildings differently

Building heights for new planned Figure 3: objects near HUL/monuments Building heights for new planned objects near HUL/monuments

h relative height (m) h hrelative height (m) 0 relative height of ground/terrain surface (m) h0 relative height of hground/terrain height (m) surface (m) t relative terrain ht h relative terrain height (m) to building height (m) due
b

angle and distance d hb building height (m) due to angle () viewing andangle distance d () viewing angle d distance between HUL (edge)/monument and d distance between HUL planned object (m) (edge)/monument and planned object (m)

15

2.1

Maximum height of new planned high rise buildings differently close to HUL / monuments

One can differentiate three cases in general. The scheme for calculation of maximum height of planned new objects near to HUL/monuments: The sketches can only show the general principle. Recommendations for protective distances and viewing angles should be worked out by international groups of stakeholders. This could be done for different classes of HUL and planned building measures. The absolute geodetic height a.s.l. is not used for the description. It is used the relative height h above the origin of the basic line height h0 of a monument / an outer edge of HUL. Case A: The easiest case: The ground / terrain surface is (nearly) a horizontal plane (rare natural conditions). The top height of a new planned building is described by tan between horizontal line through the base point of the existing monument ht (m a.s.l.) set like h0 - and the view line from here to a (planned) new building depending on the distance d between the base points (of HUL and new building): ht = h0 hb = d tan . If the allowed and recommended angle may be 10, and the distance d between HUL/monument and a new building is 100 m, then for the possible height of a new planned building hb is here circa 18 m. Case B: Areas of manifold landform (elevations / depressions) with visibility on (upper parts of) a new (planned) high rise building from the HUL/monument. The site of a new planned building is situated within a depression / valley: ht < h0 (ht negative). Then we have to add d tan + the difference between the horizontal level h0 and the deeper site of the hb = d tan - ht. valley terrain ht : Case C: The site of a new planned building is on a hill, an elevation: d tan > ht > h0 , hb = d tan - ht. Case D: In case of terrain height ht > d tan , a new building with a certain height hb would be not allowed (no sketch in Fig. 3).

16

2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

The old species-rich cultural landscapes can only be obtained through former pre-industrial cultivation. They should be protected in smaller areas under historic care regimes. Avoid falsification of historic architectural monuments and historic cultural landscape! One can not claim to protect century-old historic agrarian landscape, if takes place the appropriate land use by "industrialized" agriculture with all negative environmental damage.17 Historic cultural landscape of a specific pre-industrial era can be preserved only if there is carried out also the historic farming system. This would be possible probably only on smaller areas without using large machines and therefore with higher costs. Particularly agricultural mini-plots inside cities can affect the resident population. Here are to meet specific design and administrative requirements necessarily.
17

2.2 Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

Fig. 4 a , b. Loschwitz, Dresden, a 1710 (above): unknown artist; opaque colors; (super-elevated vertical scale); source: Huth (2005); fishermens and vintners village with mortar-less stone terrace walls of hillside vineyards

2011 (below): nearly the same area, now well-known part of city Dresden, with Art Nouveau villas, restaurants, suspension railway

18

2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

The original natural landscape, e.g. mainly as Sessile oak-scrub on the steep slopes of the West Lusation granits plateau, is wiped out and replaced by species-poor wine monoculture. The cultural landscape is in constant change since about 850 years in historical phases: clearing original dry scrubs; wine, mostly as mixed crops with fruits and vegetables; fallow vineyards; (secondary) forest cover; deforestation; replantation of the hillsides as wine monoculture; the latter 5 phases in continuous change, increasingly also for centuries buildings and other agricultural crops. The Statute of the winegrowers association of Saxony (Weinbauverband Sachsen e.V.) called its main goal in 2, point 1: The purpose of the association is the preservation of the Saxon cultural landscape from the elevation and promotion of the Saxon viticulture and its winegrowers and safeguarding of their interests (Knoll & Binzer 2010, p. 144). The first part requires an accurate definition of the generally vage term cultural landscape. What does cultural landscape mean? What is an intrinsic value of the cultural landscape (Knievel 2005)? Which of the above mentioned phases of continuous cultural landscape change should be preserved? This also means: What are the historical phases to be ignored, and extinguished? (E.g. (secondary) forest; urban residential development and open spaces, residential areas, etc.?) In the second part is called the real focus of the objective: promotion of viticulture and winegrowers along with their interests!? This also means: At whose expense should this promotion happen? At the expense of the resident population and of all other land uses (residential and other buildings, forests, other agricultural use, environment, nature and landscape protection? (Fig. 4 a, b). These issues can not be resolved usefully and appropriately by viticulture alone. They are complex problems of a complex regional, urban, land use, zoning, open space, landscape planning, in mutual consideration of all criteria.

119

2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

The most beautiful Art Nouveau villas in Radebeul are on former vineyards (Heinrich 2001). This applies also to a large extent on Dresden and other places in the greater Upper Elbe conurbation. Just compare the illustrations of almost exclusively wine cropping terraced steep slopes of former farmers, fishermen and winegrowers villages with todays urban and villa-like built-up areas in Huth 2005: Loschwitz 1710, opaque color, artist unknown; Wachwitz 1788, watercolor, pen-and-ink drawing). The increasing reduction and fragmentation of former agricultural land leads sometimes to previously unheard neighborhood problems. Farmers had in the past e.g. grassland on the Holocene floodplain directly on the Elbe, arable land on Pleistocene terraces of the Elbe valley, steep hillside areas, and forests on the West Lusation granite plateau outside of the Elbe valley. As a result of inheritance and land speculation in the industrialization in the 19th century were always smaller areas for the growing number of owners. First, larger hillside areas, used as vineyards or otherwise, were subdivided into smaller slope stripes from foothill to uphill. There was, especially after World War II, another strong break down the narrow stripes to fragment mini-plots, crosswise, parallel to contour lines from upper slope, medium slope to foot-slope. Knievel (2005) describes for example shading and root penetration and woody plants encroachment in marginal areas from adjacent land which could not be accepted by the miniwinegrowers on their small plots under any circumstances.

20

2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

From 1604 AD mortar-less stone walls were built for vineyard terraces (Fig. 4 a, 5). The Electoral vineyards in Pillnitz received new mortar-less stone terrace walls in the 18th century, the ones in Wachwitz in the 19th century. Large terraced hillside areas exist up to now. Other old terraced slopes are now with broken down walls under forest. Nearly each year (e.g. after frost or precipitation periods) break down up to kilometres of old mortar-less stone walls. So there is a lot of expensive reconstruction work all times

21

2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

One tries to build new mortar-less stone walls for new viticulture terraces in some places independently of earlier historic land use for wine or without such. Such new terrace walls would be falsifications of architectural monuments and historic urban cultural landscape (HUL). And this would be introduced under totally different land use conditions through the recent viticulture mini plots inside densely populated cities, close to residential areas with ecological risks by industrialized management (air pollution by pesticides and ploughing after dry periods, water erosion on bare soils without herb layers under vines).

22

2.2 An example: Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

Should we build or plan new terrace walls - as "architectural monuments" - for new mini-vineyards in other parts of the hillsides where never have been previously terrace walls or vineyards (hypothesis)? This would be a distortion of historical cultural landscape, quite opposite to the goals of preservation.

Industrialization and urban expansion have led to large building areas, including former vineyards have been converted into residential areas (Fig. 4a, b). Here we find many beautiful Art Nouveau villas, and protected architectural monuments

23

Architectural monuments and mortar-less stone terrace walls of pre-industrial viticulture

Fig. 5.

Castle Wackerbarth, Baroque

24

Conclusions
Measures are needed to avoid or minimize threatening processes Basic town planning principles due to landform diversity! Not only setting out like a chessboard or like a plan scheme in a central coordinate system! e for visual cape perception, description, and assessment The scheme Visual landscape perception, description and assessment, (Thomas 2007; modified: Figure 2) is also usable for the basic description, analysis and monitoring of HUL. This is related to the analysis and description of a 'sphere of effect' and 'protection area' around a monument after Eidloth (2008): The boundaries of these spheres follow the water divides. In different world cultures exist monuments within sacred groves, e.g. monasteries in East Asia.

25

Bibliographical References

[1] Eidloth, V. (2008): Das Baudenkmal in seiner Umgebung. Umgebungsschutz als konservatorischer Auftrag. Arbeitskreis Theorie und Lehre der Denkmalpflege e.V.: Sozialer Raum und Denkmalinventar. Vorgehensweisen zwischen Erhalt, Verlust, Wandel und Fortschreibung. Leipzig 2007. Sandsteinverlag Dresden 2008, 53 -60 [2] FEHLING, J. (1988): 50 Jahre VdgB Schsische Winzergenossenschaft Meissen. In: Der Weinbau in Meissen und Umgebung. 800 Jahre Weinbau im Elbtal. Ed.: Schsische Winzergenossenschaft Meissen. 1988 [3] Giovannoni, G. (1913; 1931): Vecchie citta ed edilizia nuova. Nuovo Antologia

[4] HUTH, M. (Ed.). Der Sonne am nchsten. Hoflnitz, Stiftung Weingutmuseum. Dresden 2005 Denkmalpflege e.V. Beitrge auf der Jahrestagung 1999 in York. Dresden [5] KNOLL, Rudolf; BINZER, Britta. Winzer & Weine im schsischen Elbland. edition Schsische Zeitung, SaxoPhon Dresden 2010. 167 p. [6] Richter, H. (1962): Eine neue Methode der gromastabigen Kartierung des Reliefs. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 106, 4: 309-312 [7] TABORITZKI, B. P. von (2000): Probleme der Erhaltung historischer Kulturlandschaften bzw. der Sicherung des Bestandes mit Instrumenten der Denkmalpflege (Problems in protecting historic landscapes with special references to the organisational instruments available). In: Auenraum als Kulturdenkmal. Umfeld historischer Bauten Stadtgrn Parklandschaften. Arbeitskreis Theorie und Lehre der [8] THOMAS, S. (2007): Landform Diversity as a Basis of Design and Planning on a Regional Landscape Scale. In: Connected 2007 International Conference on Design Education, 9 12 July 2007, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. CD-ROM CONNECTED www.connected2007.com.au, 4 p. [12] THOMAS, S. (2009): Landform and protection of Historic Urban Landscapes.12th International seminar of forum UNESCO university and heritage (5-10 April 2009) on Historic Urban Landscapes (HUL), Hanoi, SR Vietnam, 2009, paper 70, 9 pp.

26

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Dipl. phys. Andreas Matthus, Faculty of Architecture, Dresden University of Technology

Thank you for your attention !

27