engleski

Diocletian's Palace - Palace of Places

The appearance of Diocletian Palace’s architecture today is witness to the many layers of past human activities, which is enabled by its potentials for transformation and adaptability to new contents. Due to a lack of clear distinction between interior and exterior, the transformation of buildings into a city, of architectural elements into urbanistic forms, has resulted in a series of playful and poetic solutions. Diocletian’s Palace has retained both its residential and public character to this day, when, as dominant part of the historical core of Split, it remains isolated within the Baroque city walls, split off from the rest of the growing city. In its cramped framework the palace has been forced to yield to the pressures of tourism. Eternal form and changing function of the Palace were an inspiration throughout history, in both art and architecture: from Robert Adam to Aldo Rossi and Herman Hertzberger. Their thoughts about Diocletian‘s palace as an architectural and urban place for itself, and about specific places within it, are suitable for the reconceptualization of the relationship between the city and the house. The public space of Diocletian‘s Palace has a long history of domestication of public space, which has recently been threatened by the dictates of tourism. Considering the topic of this workshop, the focus of my presentation is on dual role of public space. Throughout centuries it also fulfills the role of the „living room“ of the local residents. The next focus is diverted attention: from famous places in the Palace, the monuments, to its anonymous „invisible“ parts, without which, according to Aldo Rossi, the urban whole does not exist. Diocletian’s Palace allowed its residents to complete their everyday activities, and the change in their way of life over time, evidenced by the layers that are a result of continued life within the ancient walls. Treating the Palace primarily as an ancient monument, ignoring its layers, led in several phases to purification, among which a particularly sore spot is the purification of the south-eastern quadrant of the Palace in the mid-20th century, during which residential structures, largely from the Middle Ages, were demolished, and the attempt to reconstruct the ancient layer remained unclear and unfinished. The biggest side-effect of purification is doubtless the isolation of residents from parts of the Palace. Preserving the vitality of the Palace, both as a “house”, a neighbourhood and a city centre, is impossible without preserving and stimulating habitation as its primary function. Furthermore, what is on the inside is equally important to what is on the outside of the Palace walls. Indeed, the historical suburbs that surround the baroque walls of Split could be thought about as interacting closely with the historical centre, which would enrich its diversity and open up new freedoms of choice and expression.

Diocletian's Palace, public/private space, domestication of public space, overtourism, urban studies

nije evidentirano