Around the world there are squares and plazas that have become national symbols - Beijing's Tiananmen Square and Moscow's Red Square - while others are must-see places on any visit to their cities: Trafalgar Square in London and Piazza Navona in Rome. In Israel, however, despite a few modest successes here and there, it is hard to point out such sites.
In recent years many local developers - some by choice and others not - have built plazas near the projects they have completed. In most cases the results are a failure. One such example is the plaza at the entrance to the Pelephone building in Givatayim: anyone who does not have business in the building will never go there.
Architect Eran Tamir-Tawil, who writes a Hebrew blog on the arsitectura site, claims that that particular plaza may not even be a real square, as it is just open space in front of the building, and not an active square. It is above a parking lot, has hardly any landscaping or greenery, no public functions and no real life of its own.
Advertisement
"Building percentage restrictions and the desire to gain extra space," says Tamir-Tawil, "lead [planners] to play games with levels and a series of ramps, like at the plaza beside Beit Asia in Tel Aviv, which is a missed opportunity.
"The reason squares (kikar in Hebrew) in Israel are less prominent and impressive than abroad," continues Tamir-Tawil, "is the distance between houses in Israeli cities.
"In Israel, unlike Europe, there is space between all the buildings, so we don't need a square to achieve perspectives of open space. When cities are crowded, as they are in Europe, the square stands in dramatic contrast to the closedness around it."
In Israel the "square" concept is over used, even when the space in question does not fit the description. Very few squares in Israel fulfill their urban purpose successfully, and there are plenty of examples of failures.
Kikar Atarim is a case in point. It is not frequented as a meeting place and is an uninviting spot in the heart of Tel Aviv.
Tamir-Tawil believes that Kikar Atarim suffers from the same problem as Place de la Bonne Heure, on the border of Tel Aviv-Jaffa.
"The architects who designed them never intended to create a square," explains Tamir-Tawil, "but rather to find a solution for the parking lot - and therefore did not succeed in making a successful square." Place de la Bonne Heure, beside the Dan Panorama hotel, should have been part of a series of raised plazas, above parking lots, that were planned as the heart of the main urban center in the Menashiya neighborhood. The square was designed by architects Amnon Niv, Amnon Schwartz and Danny Schwartz. Despite its poetic name, Place de la Bonne Heure is a lifeless, inaccessible site. There is a good chance that you have passed it on several occasions and never known you were there.
Tamir-Tawil thinks the problem with Kikar Atarim and Place de la Bonne Heure is similar to that of Kikar Dizengoff, also in Tel Aviv.
"With all three of them, the traffic solution was more important and the square is only part of the total plan. During that period, the 1960s and 1970s, architects believed it was possible to raise the level of the street to the fourth floor and that human activity would manage to bridge the gap. They thought that passersby would make the effort. This optimism and naivete did not prove true, and this problem is not unique to Israel. This assumption was prevalent elsewhere, and there, too, proved incorrect."
Kikar Dizengoff in its current incarnation was planned by architect Tsvi Lissar, of Lissar Architects and City Planners. Lissar insists that the criticism of the design stems from a nostalgic perspective that is cut off from reality. Even so, Lissar does not hide the fact that the traffic arrangements played a central role in the planning process. Among other things, he relates that the depth of the square's foundations was calculated in keeping with a plan for a subway train with a station in the plaza of nearby Chen Cinema. Lissar feels there is no need to tear down the square, but rather just make some changes and adjustments.
"Of course I would do all sorts of things differently now," says Lissar, "but I think the concept is good even today. The square's weak spot is the pedestrian crossings of Dizengoff, Pinsker and Reines Streets, which in the original plan were next to the square, but were moved away by orders of the Transportation Ministry.
"There are two large streets beside the square that create a continuum. These are places with piazza qualities (small, attractive squares that are very common in Italy) - that were never turned into such due to business considerations. I think the area around the square should be made into a cultural center. Bookstores and art galleries would make pleasant surroundings."
Lissar adds that he would also change the finishing materials.
"Kikar Dizengoff was inaugurated in 1978 and was built from the best materials available back then," continues Lissar. "Today I would change the finishing of the floor and use more durable materials. The original design included sunshades that were left out due to budgetary constraints. Returning Kikar Dizengoff to its previous state will create a virtual square. People will not come to the central area, which will be a traffic island separated from the circular sidewalk by a road. There will only be a sense of space, but the square will not function. Just like Kikar Hamedina."
Even people who disagree with the idea of razing Kikar Dizengoff do not think it is a role model. There is also no such dispute regarding Kikar Atarim. Unfortunately, it is harder to find examples of successful squares.
Tamir-Tawil says that the most successful square in Israel is the Western Wall plaza. It is an urban space that is almost always bustling with activity. Kikar Rabin is also a good square. It is important to remember that it was not intended as an active square, like a piazza, but as a monochromatic plaza it serves its purpose. Jerusalem's Zion Square and Kikar HaChatulim (Cat Square, behind Nahalat Sheva) are always busy, and are part of a successful urban system. "A good square needs easy access," explains Tamir-Tawil, "and activities around its edges and surroundings. The facades of the buildings facing the square are less crucial."
Lissar believes there is no formula for planning a square, and each instance is different. "A good square is influenced by its geometry, its surroundings," he says. "Some squares are built even before their surroundings. It is important to understand who comes to the square and how they get there. There is another component, which I call the street connection. People walk along the street and stop to meet other people, or to watch, and experiences area created that depend on the surroundings. "Some people contend that a square must be on the level, with the street, but that is a matter for debate. Today, when you stand on top of Kikar Dizengoff, you see the buildings and the cars passing beneath the square and coming out the other side. This is a different type of experience." Lissar offers the example of the square beside the Ordea cinema in Ramat Gan as a successful square. "The rectangular square is connected with a road; there is a synagogue on one side and a road that is closed on Shabbat, becoming part of the sidewalk. That is a square with a human element." So what can be done to improve Israel's squares? Tamir-Tawil says it starts with the planning. "A square's success depends on its really being wanted from the outset, and not as an afterthought or byproduct of something else. A good square, in other words, is a goal in its own right."
All copyrights saved to haaretz ltd
