I keep running into landscape, I reckon, on almost daily basis in some news outlet. It’s hardly all there is to news, but keeps cropping up, as I’ve mentioned at times in my essays that have focused on its visuality. It was late last month, February 20 to be specific, that I came across a newspaper story that exemplifies the core issue with landscape, how it is a conservative and bourgeoisie way of seeing, as defined by Denis Cosgrove in article ‘Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea’. It’s also evident from the text that it is a medium, “good for nothing in itself, but expressive of a potentially limitless reserve value”, as defined by W. J. T. Mitchell (5) in his book ‘Landscape and Power’.
What I’m looking at here, in this essay, is a text or a bundle of texts attributed to Jari Heino, as published in Turun Sanomat (a local newspaper) on February 20, 2019. The title of the main text is ‘Kauppaopiston naapurit ovat nyreissään’. It translates to something along the lines of the ‘The neighbors of the trade school are upset’. The title of the additional text is ‘“Korttelin sisäalueet jäävät väljiksi”’ It translates to something like ‘The courtyard will remain open”. The online version has slightly different title: ‘Kauppaopiston naapureilla huoli miljööstään – seitsemän asuntoyhtiötä vastustaa korkean pihasiiven rakentamista’. That is something like ‘The neighbors of the trade school are concerned about their milieu – seven housing associations object to the plans to build a tall building’.
The gist of the story is that there are these residential buildings. They are five to six story buildings, by the looks of it. They form a U-shaped unit, with an open courtyard. The other end has no tall building facing it. As the buildings are on a hill, the current building in that other end is located downhill, so the wing of the school building that protrudes towards the yard in that end does not obstruct vision from the other end where one of the residential buildings is located. The school that caters to high school aged students, providing education useful in business and administration related jobs, is scheduled to relocated to another building that is currently vacant. The current building will be demolished and a new mixed use (residential and business) building is planned to take its place. What bothers the local residents of the surrounding buildings is the protruding wing of the new building that is supposed to be taller than the wing in the existing building. Simply put, the gist of the issue is that the other end of the block, currently open, will be partially visually obscured in that end. That’s why residents are aggrieved by the plans.
One thing worth noting is that the building discussed, to be demolished and replaced by a new building, is not on the same premises as the residential buildings. It is also not owned by the residents of these residential buildings. I’m not entirely sure who owns the property, but, for sure, it is not owned by them.
The photo caption is very telling of the issue. The two men depicted in the main photo are the people who are in charge (chairmen) of two of the housing associations (the residents collectively own the premises, kind of like a company, having shares). They are said to be concerned about the plans for the new building because it would obstruct the view, so that the tower of the Turku Cathedral, a local landmark, could no longer be seen from the buildings and the courtyard. In the text this is reiterated as the men being concerned about the planned changes that end up changing the landscape.
The residents have made appeals and voiced their concerns, not about the plans to construct a new building but about the height of the protruding wing, which, according to them should not be constructed, at all, and if it is, then at least it should not be allowed to be as tall as it is planned. The residents insist that the courtyard must be retained the way it is, i.e. the way the light enters it from one side and how it is open must not be affected. They argue that the wing of the planned new building must blend in with the environment, not redefine it.
The area has to be rezoned to accommodate the new building. That process is underway. The plan has been tentatively accepted (there’s always appeals etc.). The residential buildings, being old and all, are to be given additional protection, meaning that they cannot be altered as easily as they would be otherwise. The residents wish to include the adjacent building into the protected area. That would lock things down.
Here it is worth reiterating that the local residents do not own the adjacent property. Simply put, they want to block the construction of something that is not on their property. It is indicated that they are not happy with the planned increase of built space in the relevant building permits. They are expected to appeal on that basis. It is indicated in the supplementary text that, actually, the current building was not built as high as it was permitted to be built, as pointed out by the city zoning architect. It could be built higher, today, without any additional paperwork needed. In other words, the residents are basing their claim, at least partially, wrong information. The other reason they’d give is that the old residential environment must be respected. In other words, the protruding wing must not be constructed because it would alter the landscape. It’s quite literally so that ‘in their view’ this mustn’t be allowed to happen.
It’s puzzling how apt Cosgrove’s definition of landscape as a way of seeing is, as exemplified by the statements contained in this newspaper story. Again, remember that the local residents do not own the property that is planned to be redeveloped, yet, somehow, they consider that they hold a commanding view, that they own the view, what is outside their own property (the buildings and the courtyard). Simply put, as explained by Cosgrove (46), and Mitchell (5), it is clear that in this case landscape is a medium that is utilized for “the practical appropriation of space.” Remember, it is in their interest to prevent the redevelopment of the adjacent property. I can’t be sure of what factors weigh in, but, I guess, the view from the buildings is assumed to affect the value of their property. Anyway, I’m sure there’s no shortage of similar news stories and this is something which I’d like to research in the future, when I’m done with this doctorate.
As a side note, as much as people tell you not to read comments, this story actually has some good comments. For example, multiple commentators point out that we wouldn’t have buildings next to one another in a city if all these landscape concerns were taken into consideration. A couple of people also point out what’s at stake, using landscape as a medium, just so that you can prevent change, anything that is not desirable for you. This is why, as a way of seeing, landscape is conservative. Some are also amused by how people think they can own everything in the landscape, what can be seen from a certain point, without actually owning the relevant property. That is actually the whole point of landscape as a way of seeing. Also, it is not that people scheme and conspire, like comic book villains or the like, but rather that they come to see world this way (how this happens is another story, already covered in previous essays).
References
- Cosgrove, D. E. (1985). Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 10 (1), 45–62.
- Heino, J. (2019). Kauppaopiston naapurit ovat nyreissään. Turku, Finland: Turun Sanomat.
- Mitchell, W. J. T. (Ed.) (2002). Landscape and Power (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.