Between knowledge of landscape production and representation

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements I would like to thank the anonymous referees and the editors for their valuable comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Rachel Kallus, Thaisa Way and Jeffery D. Blankenship for their constructive remarks at the early phase of the manuscript. Notes General note: Haifa city plans are officially marked HP with a serial number (eg, HP 723, etc.); HCA: Haifa City Archive, HEA: Haifa Engineer's Office Archive, ICA: Israel State Archive. On the ‘urban gaze’ relationship between landscape and the visual, see: J. Wylie, Landscape (London/New York, Routledge, 2007), pp. 55–185; B. Batuman, ‘The Image of Urban Politics: Turkish Urban Professionals and Urban Representation as a Site of Struggle’, Journal of Architectural Education, 62:2 (2008), pp. 54–65; G. H. Hermosilla, ‘Panoramic View and National Identity: Two of Santiago de Chile's Public Spaces in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century’, Planning Perspectives, 24:3 (2009), pp. 319–347. W. J. T. Mitchell, ‘Imperial Landscape’, in, W. J. T. Mitchell, ed., Landscape and Power (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 1–2. Beyond its aesthetic role, Mitchell emphasised the landscape as a medium through which political ideas are materialised. Mitchell claimed that landscape representations are important documents in understanding the development of colonial, national and personal identities. R. Kauffman, ‘First Planning of Haifa-Acre (1925/6)’, in, A. Keinan, ed., Circles of Generations (Tel Aviv, 1952), p. 192. See various articles in: M. Treib, ed., Representing Landscape Architecture (London/ New York, Routledge, 2008). See, for example, edited volumes by: J. Corner, ed., Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1999); A. Kahn and C. Burn, Site Matters (London/New York, Routledge, 2005); C. Waldheim, ed., Landscape Urbanism Reader (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2006); R. Z. Delue and J. Elkins, Landscape Theory (London/New York, Routledge, 2008). The ‘way of seeing’ is a key term in the understanding of landscape representation. It considers a particular visual and textual imagery of the landscape and focuses upon representations of cultural images in art, poetry, literature, photography and cartography; on how landscapes express both cultural, political and economic power relationships and their spatial attributes, emphasising landscape as a dynamic socio-cultural participant, evidence of strategic action, and a cultural catalyst. On the ‘way of seeing’, see: D.E. Cosgrove and S. Daniels, Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988); P. Grooth and T.W. Bressi, Understanding Ordinary Landscapes (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1997); D. Harris, D. F. Ruggles, Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision (Pittsburgh, PA, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007) and J. Wylie, Landscape (London/ New York, Routledge, 2007). Gillian Rose argues that the landscape as ‘way of seeing’ is a particularly masculine European socio-economic elite's visual gaze that relates to the landscape scenery as female body and as the beauty of nature: G. Rose, Feminism and Geography; The Limits of Geographical Knowledge (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993). On the landscape as a cultural catalyst, see, for example: B. Meyer, ‘The Expanded Field of Landscape Architecture’, in, G. George Thompson and F. Steiner, Ecological Design and Planning (New York, Wiley & Sons Press, 1997), pp. 45–51; J. Corner, ed., Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1999); D. Harris, The Nature of Authority: Villa Culture, Landscape and Representation in 18 th Century Lombardy (University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003). On perspectives of landscape and politics, see, for example: D. Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge, MA., The MIT Press, 1995); D. Mitchell, ‘Cultural Landscapes: Just Landscapes or Landscapes of Justice?, Progress in Human Geography, 27:6 (2003), pp. 787–796; K. Olwig, Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic: from Britain's Renaissance to America's New World (Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 2002); D. Harris, ‘Race, Space and Destabilization of Practice’, Landscape Journal, 26:1 (2007), pp.1–9; Z. Kolodney, R. Kallus, ‘The Politics of Landscape (Re)production: Haifa, a City caught between Colonialism and Nation-Building’, Landscape Journal, 27:2 (2008), pp. 173–189. On the right to landscape, see: S. Egoz, J. Makhzoumi, G. Pungetti, The Right to Landscape: Contesting Landscape and Human Rights (London, Ashgate Press, 2011). See, for example: D. Harris, ‘The Postmodernization of Landscape: A Critical Historiography’, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 58:3 (2000), pp. 434–443; B. Meyer, ‘The Expanded Field of Landscape Architecture’, in, G. Thompson, F. Steiner, Ecological Design and Planning (New York, Wiley & Sons Press, 1997), pp. 45–79. D. Harris, ‘The Postmodernization of Landscape’, op. cit., pp. 434–443. J. Corner, ed., Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). R. Ziady DeLue and J. Elking, Landscape Theory (London, Routledge, 2008). M. Hays, 'Notes on Narrative Method in Historical Interpretation', Footprint (Autumn, 2007), pp. 23–30; M. Jarzombek, ‘The Cunning of Architecture's Reason’, Footprint (Autumn, 2007), pp. 31–46. H. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, D. Nicholson-Smith, trs., (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 1991). K. Olwig, Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic, op. cit. See Note 1. D. Harris and D. F. Ruggles, Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision, op. cit. While working for the Zionist Organisation, ‘Palestine Land Development Company’, (1921–1932), Kauffman proposed in Haifa the neighbourhood plans for Bat Galim (1921), Neve Sha'anan (1922) and Hadar Hacarmel (1923), a plan for the Mount Carmel Zone (1923) and the layout for Haifa's Bay area (1926–7). About Richard Kauffman's plans in Haifa, see: G. Herbert, S. Sosnovsky, Bauhaus on the Carmel and the crossroads of empire (Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben Zvi/Haifa: Architectural Heritage Centre, 1993), pp. 156–210. R. Kauffman, ‘First Planning of Haifa-Acre (1925/6)’, op. cit., p. 192. B. Bender, ‘Subverting the Western Gaze: Mapping alternative Worlds’, in, P. J. Ucko, R. Layton, The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape (London, Routledge, 1999), pp. 31–45. F. Driver and D. Gilbert, eds., Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1999). A. Morshed, The Cultural Politics of Aerial Vision: Le Corbusier in Brazil (1929), Journal of Architectural Education, 55:4 (2002), pp. 201–210. [HEA 1933], Minutes of the 27 th meeting, Local Town Planning Commission (March 30th, 1933), (HP 125). [HEA 1935], The Carmel Plateau and Panorama Road Plan (HP 125, approved in 1935). Concerning Ottoman and Mandate Haifa, see: M. Yazbak, Haifa in the Late Ottoman Period, 1864–1914: A Muslim Town in Transition (Leiden, Brill Publishers, 1998); M. Seikaly, Haifa transformation of an Arab society 1918–1939 (London/New York, I.B. Tauris, 1998). Palestine official census (Israel State Archive, 1918); The Palestine Post, 14:3 (February,1943). Census estimate: statistical abstract (Israel State Archive, 1944/1945); Israeli Census (Israel State Archive, 8.11.48). In relation to British colonial plans in Haifa, see: G. Herbert, S. Sosnovsky, Bauhaus on the Carmel and the Crossroads of Empire, op. cit.; B. Hyman, British Planners in Palestine, 1918–1936 (Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD, London School of Economics and Political Science, 1994). J. L. A. Watson, ‘The Past Four Years in Haifa’, Building in the Near East, 4 (1938), pp. 57–61. [HEA 1935], The Carmel Plateau and Panorama Road Plan, op. cit. [HCA 1944–1945], City Engineer's Annual Report, 1944–1945, p. 10. Professor Adolf (Peter) Rading (1888–1957), architectural adviser to Haifa Town Planning Department (1943–1950), was the planner of ‘Panorama Road’ [HEA 1944], Panorama Road Plan (HP 669, approved in 1944). [HEA 1948] Panorama Road – Extension (HP 723, approved in 1948). G. Crandell, ‘Nature Pictorialized: “The View”‘, in Landscape History (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). The Bezalel School, founded in 1903 by Boris Schatz, established a distinctive style in which artists portrayed both Biblical and Zionist subjects. About early art in Israel, see: Y. Zalmona, To the East? In The East: Orientalism in the Arts in Israel (Jerusalem, Israel Museum, 1998; exhibition and catalogue); D. Manor, ‘Biblical Zionism in Bezalel Art’, Israel Studies, 6:1 (2001), pp. 55–75. Ze'ev Raban (1970–1890) was a leading artist of the Bezalel School and one of the founders of the Israeli art world. W. J. T. Mitchell, ‘Imperial Landscape’, op. cit., p. 12. On the English landscape approach, see, for example: G. Crandell, ‘Nature Pictorialized: “The View”‘, op. cit.; S. Herrington, On Landscapes (New York/London, Routledge, 2009), pp. 33–51. D.F. Ruggles, ‘Making Vision Manifest: Frame, Screen, and View in Islamic Culture’, in, D. Harris, D.F. Ruggles, Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision op. cit., pp. 131–156. H. V. Scott, ‘Rethinking Landscape and Colonialism in the Context of Early Spanish Peru’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24:4 (2006), pp. 481– 496; M. H. Edney, Mapping an empire the geographical construction of British India, 1765–1843 (Chicago & London, University of Chicago Press, 1997). M. L. Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (New York/London, Routledge, 1992); J. Urry, The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies (London, Sage Publishers, 1990); G. Rose, Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1993). H. Maor, Marked Landscapes: ‘Landscape-Place’ in Contemporary Israeli Art (Beer Sheva, Ben Gurion University Gallery, 2003; exhibition and catalogue). Of the 190,000 newcomers arriving in Israel between May, 1948 and March, 1949, 24,000 remained in Haifa. By 1948, immediately after the war, the city's population was estimated at 98,284, of which 96% were Jews (Israeli Census 08.11.48, Israel State Archive.). In 1951 it was estimated at 149,917 inhabitants, 95% Jewish (Israel Bureau of Statistics 1951, Israel State Archive). On the connection between planning/architecture and nation-building, see: S. Bozdogan Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Washington, University of Washington Press, 2001); Z. Kolodney, R. Kallus, ‘Between Colonial and National Landscapes’, Planning Perspectives Journal, 23:3 (2008a), pp. 323–348. [HCA 1954], Haifa City Council Meeting No.122, May 17th, 1954. [HCA 1950], Town Planning Committee no. 165, September 22nd, 1950. A. Nesher, ‘We must Protect the Beauty of the Carmel City’, Haaretz newspaper (31.01. 51). A. Khoushy, Thirty Months of Work: Haifa (Haifa, Haifa Municipality, 1954), p. 19. One metric dunam = 1,000 m2 W. J. T. Mitchell, ‘Imperial Landscape’, in, W. J. T. Mitchell, ed., Landscape and Power (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 1–2. Beyond its aesthetic role, Mitchell emphasised the landscape as a medium through which political ideas are materialised. Mitchell claimed that landscape representations are important documents in understanding the development of colonial, national and personal identities. , a measurement used in the Ottoman Empire and still in use in Israel. http://terraces.bahai.org/terraces.en.html http://whc.unesco.org/en/list; http://terraces.bahai.org/architects.en.html