ArticlePDF Available

Towards a Landscape of Equality: Design of the Palladian Villa to Control Access to Health

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Venetian elite of the sixteenth century invested their wealth in villas on the mainland terraferma. A villa is an agricultural unit that combines architecture, landscape, and gardens. Their construction had a significant impact on the environment of the terraferma, converting unproductive and unhealthy sites into profitable and pleasurable retreats. The Venetian architect Andrea Palladio (1508–1580) remains well known for his villa designs, popularized through his 1570 book I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura (Four Books of Architecture). Through historical analysis and spatial critique, this essay will explore Palladio’s strategies to construct a healthy environment and benefit the landowners’ health at the Villa Emo and Villa Almerica. However, by looking at the same villas through a lens of atmospheric inequality, I will reveal that a state of health was available to the elite in part by denying others the same opportunity. On the terraferma in the sixteenth century, by controlling water, air, and land, a Venetian’s ability to be healthy was secured by dispossessing others of the same right. This paper will show that access to health raises questions of spatial justice. Furthermore, gains for one segment of the population must consider the consequences to others. While this study focuses on two well-known villas that exemplify design techniques used repeatedly by Palladio, this article also identifies an opportunity to analyze structural inequalities in Palladio’s other works and in works that follow the model he developed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
107
摘要:16 世纪威尼斯的精英阶层热衷于将财富投资于内陆地区(意大利语:terraferma)的别墅庄园。别墅庄
园是集建筑、景观和花园于一体的农业单元。这些别墅庄园的建造对内陆的环境产生了重要影响,将原本非生
产性的、不健康的场地转变为收益颇丰且令人愉悦的休养场所。威尼斯建筑师安德烈亚·帕拉第奥(Andrea
Palladio15081580)因别墅设计而闻名,其 1570 年出版的著作《建筑四书》
Four Books of Architecture
)更
是广为人知。通过历史梳理和空间分析,探讨帕拉第奥在埃莫别墅和圆厅别墅中通过构建健康环境为庄园主创
造健康福祉的设计思想。然而,从呼吸不平等的视角剖析上述两栋别墅时,发现精英阶层的健康状况在一定程
度上是通过剥夺其他人的同等机会而实现的。在 16 世纪的威尼斯内陆地区,精英们通过控制并剥夺其他人享有
水、空气和土地的平等权利,来保持自身健康。认为这种获取健康的方式会引发空间正义问题。因此,部分群
体在谋取自身利益时必须要考虑对其他群体的影响。虽然研究重点是例证帕拉第奥惯用之设计手法的两座著名
别墅,但也试图分析帕拉第奥的其他作品和以帕氏建筑为模板的作品中存在的结构性不平等。
关键词:空间正义;呼吸不平等;疗愈花园;帕拉第奥式别墅
Abstract: Venetian elite of the sixteenth century invested their wealth in villas on the mainland
terraferma
. A villa
is an agricultural unit that combines architecture, landscape, and gardens. Their construction had a significant
impact on the environment of the
terraferma
, converting unproductive and unhealthy sites into profitable and
pleasurable retreats. The Venetian architect Andrea Palladio (1508–1580) remains well known for his villa designs,
popularized through his 1570 book
I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura
(
Four Books of Architecture
). Through historical
analysis and spatial critique, this essay will explore Palladio’s strategies to construct a healthy environment and
benefit the landowners’ health at the Villa Emo and Villa Almerica. However, by looking at the same villas through
a lens of atmospheric inequality, I will reveal that a state of health was available to the elite in part by denying
others the same opportunity. On the
terraferma
in the sixteenth century, by controlling water, air, and land, a
Venetian’s ability to be healthy was secured by dispossessing others of the same right. This paper will show that
access to health raises questions of spatial justice. Furthermore, gains for one segment of the population must
consider the consequences to others. While this study focuses on two well-known villas that exemplify design
techniques used repeatedly by Palladio, this article also identifies an opportunity to analyze structural inequalities
in Palladio’s other works and in works that follow the model he developed.
Keywords: spatial justice; atmospheric inequality; healing garden; Palladian Villa
著者简介(Author):
(加)菲昂·伯恩//英属哥伦比亚大学建
筑与景观学院助理教授/研究方向为自然、
美学和伦理之间的关系,主张通过思辨性设
计来改善和丰富占据主流的环境叙事
(CAN) Fionn Byrne is an assistant professor
in the School of Architecture and Landscape
Architecture, the University of British
Columbia. His research focuses on the
relationships between nature, aesthetics,
and ethics, using speculative design to
refine and diversify dominant environmental
narratives.
译者简介(Translator):
罗融融 //重庆交通大学建筑与城市规划
学院讲师 /研究方向为风景园林规划与设计
LUO Rongrong is a lecturer in the College of
Architecture and Urban Planning, Chongqing
Jiaotong University. Her research focuses on
landscape planning and design.
迈向公平的风景园林:以健康促进为目的的帕拉第奥式别墅设计
Towards a Landscape of Equality: Design of the Palladian Villa to Control Access
to Health
著:(加)菲昂·伯恩 译:罗融融
Author: (CAN) Fionn Byrne Translator: LUO Rongrong
中图分类号:TU986
文献标识码:A
文章编号:1673-1530(2021)10-0107-13
DOI10.14085/j.fjyl.2021.10.0107.13
收稿日期:2021-04-02
修回日期:2021-08-07
0  引言
健康是一种积极而非中立的状态。世界卫
生组织The World Health Organization, WHO
将健康定义为“一种在身体、心理和社会交往
等各方面都表现良好的状态,而不仅仅是没有
疾病或身体强壮”[1]WHO 认为环境因素和个
体因素通过相互作用而决定健康状态,并且逐
渐认识到接触大自然可以显著地促进整体健康。
WHO 的定义来看,促进健康所涉及的途径
包括“生理过程(清洁的空气等、物理过程(
力活动、社会过程增加社交接触的可能性
和心理过程(如放松和恢复
[2]。在这个框架内,
开放科学(资源服务)
标识码(OSID)
菲昂·伯恩,罗融融 .迈向公平的风景园林:以健康促进为目的的帕拉第奥式别墅设计 [J]. 风景园林,20212810):107-119.
108
Landscape Architecture 2021/10
解释自然环境促进人类健康的两个最有影响
力的理论是“注意力恢复理论”和“瞭望-
庇护理论”。归根结底,自由呼吸这一基本和
普遍的权利对于任何健康衡量标准都是必要
的,因为如果没有清洁的空气和畅通的呼吸,
健康生活就无从谈起 [3]
多年来,建筑师和风景园林师一直在寻
求通过环境设计以促进健康,并取得了不同
程度的成功。其中最著名且最常被模仿的便
16 世纪威尼斯贵族和设计师的作品,他们
通过修建乡村别墅来改造内陆地区,并将自
身置于同自然的和谐关系之中 [4]。在被改造之
前,低洼的威尼斯内陆地区是蚊子的重要栖
息地。尽管不像罗马平原那样糟糕,但仍被
认为是不健康的场地(1。直到 19 世纪,
人们才知道疟疾是通过蚊子传播的。但在
16 世纪,疟疾意大利语:mal aria)被认为
是由恶劣的空气条件所导致的。人们普遍认
为,沼泽和潮湿土地中腐烂的有机物会产生
通过空气传播的毒物 [5]。在一座别墅庄园的设
计中,通过风景、花园和建筑的布局来重新
分配空气、水和土地的使用权限,并由此影
响相关的人类活动和动植物生存,所有的一
切都是为了使少数拥有特权的庄园主享有洁
净的空气和健康。这种乌托邦式的建设行为
通过改变物理环境来调节空气状况,并最终
影响所有生物的健康。
笔者以安德烈亚·帕拉第奥于 16 世纪在
威尼斯郊外的内陆上所建造的两座著名别墅
为研究案例,以此揭示一种持续的压迫制度
和场地使用的不平等性是如何影响环境与个人
健康的。在这两个案例中,促进健康的设计都
会与相应的、故意营造的压抑环境形成对比。
笔者将这项研究的重点集中在呼吸不平等上,
即在空气良好的环境中自由呼吸的机会分配不
公。此外,笔者表明在 16 世纪的威尼斯,少
数拥有土地的特权阶层的健康是建立在剥夺许
多普通民众和弱势群体健康权利的基础上的。
威尼斯精英们要想保持健康并生活在健康的
环境中,就必须剥夺其他人同样的权利。在
这个前提下,通过限制其他人的呼吸使自己
的自由呼吸成为可能,而为确保自己获得新
鲜空气而采取的措施会使其他环境变得糟糕。
为健康而设计无疑是当前人类所面临的
挑战,尤其是在试图结束一场导致全球范围
内数百万人因呼吸终止而过早丧生的新型冠
状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)疫情时。本研究将
揭露过去的不公正问题,以帮助减轻和避免
结构性不平等的进一步扩张。人们必须意识
到,在这个时代,以牺牲大多数人的健康为
代价来换取少数人的健康是不可取的。
1  内陆地区的开发
现代资本主义诞生于 1516 世纪的城邦
中。例如,中世纪威尼斯共和国建立了强大
且利润丰厚的重商主义制度,贵族们因此获
得了可观的个人财富。随着热那亚共和国扩
大跨大西洋航运的范围,贸易路线开始多样
化,被称为贵族的威尼斯精英们开始将利润
投资于城市防御工事以外的领域。随着威尼
斯在大陆上取得领土并将之称为“ terraferma
内陆,以示这片坚实的土地与威尼斯岛屿区
的区分,共和国开始在此发展农业经济。这
一变化使得威尼斯统治者吉罗拉莫·普里利
Girolamo Priuli)对这些放弃海上活动转而投
身乡村生活的贵族表示失望。而事实证明,
土地投资比航运更加有利可图 [6],尤其是将沼
泽地边缘开垦后用于农业生产。
尽管在此前沼泽地是归个人所有,但协
调、资助和实施水利计划的工作已成为公众
关注的话题,1501 年威尼斯成立水利部就证
明了这一点。在该部门的建议下,测量工程
师作为一种新兴的职业出现,职责是通过调
控广阔低洼地区的水力状况来提高土地生产
力。大量的、人为控制的排水行为彻底改变
了环境 [4]。排水和灌溉改变了水与土地之间的
相互关系,将沼泽变成田地,从而减少了疟
疾的发生。如今我们认识到实施排水行为可
以消除蚊子的滋生地。然而,对于 16 世纪的
威尼斯人来说,为了净化有害空气并使土地
健康,就要让水循环起来,并清除土地上的
腐烂物质。经常被引用的希波克拉底的著作
《空气、水与场所》
Airs, Waters, Places
)中将这
一观点建立在一个经典理论之上,即“空气
是水和植物传播疾病的载体”[7]。因此,要达
到环境健康的状态,必须避免出现死水、被
污染的空气和腐烂的植被。在内陆地区的土
地上进行建造时,建筑师应试图避免将住宅选
址在不健康的场地上,并通过场地改造去克服
现有的不利自然条件。在这种情况下,出于对
健康设计的考虑,建筑和自然应相互联结,不
再是分离的领域,这种相互联结的作用在别
墅建造过程中表现得最为明显。
别墅”是指从事农业生产的建筑物和
土地的结合体。当在内陆上建造时,我们可
以专门将别墅称为乡村别墅villa rustica
country villa。然而Rustica”只是后来用
于将大陆地区与沿海区域相区分的一个术语,
在沿海区域建造的住宅被称为海上别墅(villa
maritima,并不在本文的研究范围之内 [8]。作
为农业生产的重要场所,别墅庄园包括合理
组织的耕作农田,用作打谷的庭院、谷仓或
农房,以及业主或“主人”的临时住所。庄园
主的住宅通过在生活区的上部或下部空间中储
存多余物资以发挥农业功能,例如将收获的农
作物存放到阁楼上,将葡萄酒储存在地下。这
样一来,住宅建筑空间的层次划分就成了别墅
所具备的生产、储存和安全等功能的象征 [9]
16 世纪最著名的别墅建筑师是安德烈
·帕拉第奥。他的作品对欧洲和北美的建
筑及园林发展产生了深远影响,许多历史学
家都对他留存下来的作品进行了深入研究 [4]
本研究聚焦其建筑、景观、花园和健康之间
的关系,由此可证实:创造良好的健康状况是
帕拉第奥设计时的重要驱动力。然而,帕拉
第奥式的别墅设计在实现健康生活环境的同
1 威尼斯内陆地区地图,显示了埃莫别墅和圆厅别墅与历
史上已知疟疾感染范围的位置关系
A map of the
terraferma
showing the location of the
Villa Emo and Villa Almerico in relation to known historic
extents of Malaria
疟疾感染范围
特雷维索
威尼斯
埃莫别墅
维琴察
圆厅别墅
帕多瓦
范佐洛
Fanzolo
Villa Emo Treviso
Venice
Padua
Vicenza
Villa Almerico
Malaria
1
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
109
时也产生了结构性不平等。笔者将以水和农
业劳动为背景探究埃莫别墅,基于空气和视
觉控制的角度剖析圆厅别墅,以此证明在设
计中健康的决定性要素并非与政治无关。相
反,在不断尝试去构建一个健康世界的过程
中,要能意识到不平等现象的出现。
丹尼斯·科斯格罗夫(Denis Cosgrove)在
《帕拉第奥式风景》
The Palladian Landscape
)一
书中写道:与人世间通常的情况一样,最弱
势的、在社会中占有资源最少的群体往往负
担最重,而富裕和有权势的贵族庄园主
包括威尼斯首府和地方上的庄园主,以牺牲
弱势群体的利益为代价来积累土地和财富。
[4]
就如同对待土地和财富一样,也许只有剥夺
他人享有健康的权利,才能保全自身的健康。
然而,如果事实并非如此,那么当今设计师
所面临的挑战就是必须解决和抵制科斯格罗
夫口中的这种“通常。我们应认识到过去
的建筑师和风景园林师致力于建造的环境一
定程度上有违健康公平性,要关注和思考如
何消除这些结构性不平等所带来的遗留问题,
并避免在未来继续对社会中最弱势群体的健
康权益造成影响。
2  范佐洛地区埃莫别墅的水体、灌溉
和劳作
埃莫家族是从公共资助的非耕地改造
中获利的威尼斯贵族家庭之一。早在水利部
成立的半个世纪之前,特雷维索平原上就已
经修建起了一条灌溉渠,使得该地区处于
水力控制之下。在范佐洛地区,乔治
·
莫(Giorgio Emo)是最早的土地所有者之
一。他的儿子莱昂纳多··乔瓦尼·埃莫
Leonardo di Giovanni Emo)继承了田产,并
1509 年获得了更多土地,进而通过不断
投资庄园农业来获得盈利。莱昂纳多的努力
取得了成效,两代人之后,他的孙子莱昂纳
··阿尔维斯·埃莫(Leonardo di Alvise
Emo)委托安德烈亚·帕拉第奥在他继承的庄
园中心建造一座新别墅。这座帕拉第奥式别
墅的建造始于 1555 年前后,标志着对该处家
产的再次投资 [10]。意料之中的是,帕拉第奥
在设计中将别墅建筑作为家族持续繁荣的显
性象征来打造。虽然建筑的外立面处理和凉
廊的柱式排列都较为简朴,并未直接体现家
族财力,但建筑物的形制还是体现出得当的
土地管理和较高的农业生产力水平 [10]。在帕
拉第奥的设计中可以看到“地窖、粮仓、马
厩和其他从属于别墅的空间,都分布在住宅
两侧”,两个翼从住宅中心对称地向外延伸
(图 2。虽然以两翼作为农房是典型的别墅
建筑布局,但埃莫别墅的两翼显得尤其长 [10]
这不同寻常的长度意味着有大量盈余的收成,
需要占用额外的储存空间。换言之,两翼农
房的长度代表了积累的财富。
此外,埃莫家族对繁荣的重视从别墅建
筑延伸到对周围的田地和作物的选择上。利
用附近的运河,埃莫家族将水引到庄园里灌
溉田地,这种做法符合别墅选址的一贯原则。
例如,帕拉第奥谈到选址时曾说过:“如果没
有可通航的河流,就必须想办法在其他流动
水体附近建造别墅;最重要的是远离死水,
因为它们会产生非常糟糕的空气。[11] 通常,
将流水引到别墅场地有助于种植小麦,以此
满足公众的日常生活所需。居民对小麦的高
需求一开始的确推动了配水渠的建设。然而,
在埃莫别墅,灌溉农作物并不是为了满足威
尼斯人的饮食需求,而是利用密集的灌溉来
培育水稻,而这种奢侈的农作物能迅速销往
国际市场且利润极高 [4]。通过利用公共基础设
施来积累个人和代际财富在精英阶层中变得
如此普遍,以至于威尼斯共和国近半数的水
稻种植在 16 世纪末被宣告终止 [4]
种植奢侈的农作物并非用于满足当地居
民的饮食需求,这本身就是一种不公平,然
而水稻种植还存在其他负面影响。一方面,
无论从所需工人的数量还是耕作的体力需求
来看,水稻种植都属于劳动密集型农业。此
外,住在埃莫别墅主干道对面的工人处于非
常糟糕的境地,因为他们没有自己的土地,
而且在新开发耕地的雇佣劳动制度下,雇主
通常用现金来支付工资 [12]。如果因小麦短
缺造成食品价格上涨,那么他们所获得的现
金工资甚至难以支付一顿能果腹的餐食。另
一方面,水稻的种植除灌溉外还需要积水形
成水田,正如帕拉第奥所警告的那样,这会
增加感染疟疾的风险。更糟糕的情况是,积
水的存在使工人无法在排水良好的麦田中通
过套种橄榄树或葡萄藤而获得遮阴。结果就
是工人缺乏食物、住房和土地的保障,这
迫使他们在不健康的环境中劳动的同时损
害了个人健康。罗伯特·萨拉雷斯Robert
Sallares)描述了在罗马以南平原农田中类似
的情况,并重申了雷纳托·曼穆卡里(Renato
Mammucari)的严肃论断“在饥饿直接造成
的死亡和疟蚊可能导致的死亡之间,后者几
乎总是首选……男人们为了谋生可以不畏死
亡”[13]。埃莫家族用暴利为自己的快乐和健康
买单,却最终葬送了许多人的生命。
壁画是庄园住宅中的一项重要开支,通
过一系列壁画对墙后存在的外部景观进行想
象与描摹,贵族既能观赏美景又远离任何带
有威胁的疟疾区域。而这与现实情况存在着
巨大差异,这些画作不仅描绘了在绝对富足
的情况下极度理想化的健康生活,还将田间
劳作的情景从画面中完全抹除。如果正如讨
论的那样,园林绘画是对世界的理想化表达,
那么 16 世纪威尼斯贵族在乌托邦式的幻想中
彻底否认了使他们的生活方式成为可能的劳
动阶级的存在 [14]。这种抹除画面的行为延续
了多年前罗马学者马库斯·特伦蒂乌斯·
罗(Marcus Terentius Varro)所描述的趋势,他
提道:“别墅庄园越是被界定为以市场为导向、
以利润为驱动的企业,就越应该将农业从家
族获利手段中拆分出来并加以掩盖。[8] 事实
上,瓦罗对别墅庄园的描述已经被当代学者
所推广,他们普遍质疑景观和园林设计,认
为“‘景观’一词总是掩盖了存在农村劳动力
2 埃莫别墅轴测图,展示了真实存在的和想象中的风景
The Villa Emo, showing the real and imaginary landscape
真实存在的风景
想象中的风景
Imaginary
landscape
Real landscape
2
110
Landscape Architecture 2021/10
和社会不平等的事实,将乡村变成逃避现实
的风景,而非一个工作的场所(或者一个真正
意义上的‘工人’被隐藏的地方[15]。在别
墅内部通过图像抹除以展现理想化景观的逻
辑实际上也体现在了别墅建筑外部的世界中,
尤其是在周围的花园里。
虽然帕拉第奥对埃莫别墅原始花园的描
述很少,但他确实提出了几点意见在建
筑结构”或建筑平面图的后面有一个占
地约80 个特雷维索广场意大利语campi
trevigiani)大小的方形花园,大约 100 英亩
(约 40.47 hm2中间有一条小河,这使场地
变得美丽且令人愉悦”[11]。这一“美丽”的
水景提醒我们,室外花园与在室内想象的景
色一样,都是我们对周边景观的理想化缩
[16]。花园的重建保障了周围广阔农田的灌
溉和耕作。但花园与周边景观(例如田地、果
园或厨房花园)的不同之处在于,从最初的
构思开始,它就被设定为一个休闲和劳动的
场所。14 世纪佛罗伦萨作家乔万尼·薄伽丘
Giovanni Boccaccio)率先将花园描述为一种特
定的类型,他曾表示“在花园中不应考虑劳
作”[17]。然而我们知道,如果缺乏管护,景观
将不会维持“令人愉悦”的状态,尤其是一个
规模如此之大的花园。因此,将花园与周边
景观区分开来的根本问题不是劳作与否,而
是因劳作产生的想象会使花园与众不同。花
园是介于豪华住宅和耕种田地之间的过渡空
间,精英们在这里参与了劳作,尽管他们的
劳动并没有形成实质上的生产力 [6]。毕竟,生
产力能将锻炼与田间劳作区分开来,而对精
英阶层来说劳作是非必需的。因此,花园不
再用作生产用途,转而用作进行散步、游泳
吃饭、交谈和睡觉等疗愈活动 [14]。这种观点
也得到了罗马诗人昆图斯·贺拉提乌斯·
拉库斯(Quintus Horatius Flaccus)的认同,对
贺拉提乌斯而言,“花园的价值不在于生产力,
而是能够从城市生活的烦躁和忧虑中得到喘
息,享受胜人一筹的花园生活乐趣”[14]。现在
就很容易理解花园是如何体现社会地位的了:
解除部分土地的生产用途是财富过剩的明显
表现,尤其是在劳动者无法拥有任何属于自
己的土地的情况下。当然,花园对城市压力
的缓解机制仍待进一步研究。
重新关注到自然环境作用于健康的各种
机制,包括生理、物理、社会和心理过程
花园无疑是一个促进整体健康的空间,前文
已经涉及花园在生理(水系的组织、物理(
)和社会(权力和财富的展现)等方面的作
用,此外还必须考虑劳作中的心理过程。雷
切尔·卡普兰(Rachel Kaplan)和史蒂芬·
普兰(Stephen Kaplan)的“注意力恢复理论”
是解释绿色空间促进健康的最受欢迎的理论
之一。虽然卡普兰夫妇直到 1989 年才发表他
们的基础著作《自然的体验:基于心理学视
角 》(
The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective
,但有人认为,健康的心理决定因
素在漫长进化过程中变化不大。如果这一说
法成立,那么应该可以认为如今环境对健康
的作用路径与 16 世纪无异。
“注意力恢复理论”认为,人类有直接和
间接两种不同的注意力模式。当一个人在精
神上专注于手头的任务时,直接注意力是活跃
的;而当大脑处于休息状态时,间接注意力是
活跃的。该理论基于以下论断:当一种注意力
模式活跃时,另一种可以得到恢复。因此,对
于日常工作中需要直接注意力的城市居民来
说,当身处自然之中时,可为其提供一个调动
间接注意力并恢复直接注意力储备的机会。正
如前文所述,贺拉提乌斯阐明了同样的观点,
他认为花园的最大价值是“从城市生活的烦躁
和忧虑中得到喘息”。因此很容易得出以下结
论:对于威尼斯贵族来说,花园是一个有助于
整体健康的空间。然而,当谈及 16 世纪在别
墅庄园田间劳作的工人时,“注意力恢复理论”
需要被重新论证。因为根据这一理论,可以
合乎逻辑地进行推论:劳工通过不断重复的近
乎机械化的农耕活动,在自然中度过了更长的
时间,因此将成为社会上最健康的阶层;他们
只需要每隔一段时间进行一次剧烈的直接脑力
活动,就可以恢复耗尽的间接注意力。显而易
见,这种情况与事实相去甚远
虽然那些田
间劳作的人完全沉浸在大自然中,但只有精英
才能享受自然的疗愈作用。正如詹姆斯·
克曼(James Ackerman)所述:“历史上几乎没
有证据表明那些别无选择,只能留在当地的
农民或奴隶体验到了别墅文学中描绘的乡村
生活的魅力。事实上,正是劳动者额头上的
汗水使庄园主们享受到了田园生活的乐趣。
[6]
埃莫别墅通过调控水来灌溉高产的稻田,
出口大米所产生的利润又用来投资建筑和花
园的物理空间与象征意义,从而改善了家族
的健康。然而,相应的设计决策会直接影响
更多个体的健康。灌溉田地的积水增加了因
感染疟疾而死亡的可能性,而劳动者在不断
努力争取食物和住所的过程中牺牲了他们的
身体健康。这个例子表明,抛开个体所处的
社会和政治环境来讨论自然的健康供给是毫
无意义的。当然,有感染疟疾风险的不仅是
劳动者。虽然富有的威尼斯人通常可以通过
在城郊别墅避暑以减少感染风险,但疟蚊的
传播方式仍然与威尼斯人的观念一致,即疟
疾是由危险的死水散发出的水汽扩散所致
正如即将看到的那样,为了应对糟糕的空气
质量,帕拉第奥在圆厅别墅中延续压迫和呼
吸不平等的空间模式以维持庄园主健康。
3  维琴察圆厅别墅的空气、地坪高度
和监视
1565 年,神父保罗·阿尔梅里科(Paolo
Almerico)从梵蒂冈的宗教事务中退休后回到
威尼斯内陆家中,委托帕拉第奥在维琴察市
1/4 英 里 (约 0.4 km)处设计他的新居
著名的圆厅别墅Villa Rotonda。该建筑成为
帕拉第奥最负盛名的作品,甚至被称为文艺
复兴时期建筑中最有影响力的典范 [18]。该设
计体现出与埃莫别墅的几个显著差异,正
帕拉第奥所描述的那样,圆厅别墅甚至不符
合对别墅的传统定义。它既没有用于打谷的
庭院,也没有与之相对应的向两翼延伸的农
房,取而代之的是一个坐落在花园和农田之间
的避暑别墅。因为没有相邻的服务建筑,主体
住宅可以围绕中央圆厅形成双边对称的 4个入
口 (图 3。这种新颖的乡村住宅设计手法使
得帕拉第奥在 1570 年出版的《建筑四书》中
将圆厅别墅归类为其他联排别墅,而不是埃
莫别墅这样的内陆别墅。尽管如此,圆厅别
墅确实坐落在一个宽敞的有围墙限定的花园
中心,四周被农田包围。在保罗·阿尔梅里
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
111
科之后,第二任庄园主决定增设一座农业服
务用房,这进一步证实了这些土地的重要性。
另一位著名的威尼斯建筑师文森佐·斯卡莫
齐(Vincenzo Scamozzi)设计了这座新的附属
建筑,它位于通往圆厅的西北通道一侧。
除了建筑上的区别以外,埃莫别墅和圆
厅别墅之间最显著的差别在于相对高程。埃
莫别墅的场地相对平坦,而圆厅别墅则处于
平缓上升的山坡顶部。用帕拉第奥的话来说:
“这个场地是所能找到的最宜人和最令人愉悦
的地方;因为它位于一座小山丘上,可达性
高,旁边就是一条可通航的河流
巴齐里
奥内河。[11] 在埃莫别墅案例中已经论述过
水资源管理是环境健康的决定要素之一。在
圆厅别墅中,笔者将论证通过地坪高度和空间
组织实现对空气的调节,从而改善环境和庄园
主的健康。与此同时,由于对空气的管理并不
公平,导致更严重的健康风险、持续的监视和
对农业劳动者以及别墅仆人的进一步压迫。
帕拉第奥在一份选址说明书中详细阐述
了圆厅别墅建造在小山坡顶部的优势。正如
前文所述,帕拉第奥建议“首先要远离死水,
因为它们会产生非常糟糕的空气”,他补充道:
“如果建在高处和令人愉悦的地方,我们可以
轻易地避免糟糕的空气。空气会因风的不断
吹动而移动;而地表由于坡度的倾斜,可以清
除所有有害的水汽和湿气。[11] 对于威尼斯人
来说,凉爽干燥又循环流通的空气,如同流
动的水体一样,被认为是最健康的环境条件,
而通过地坪高度的提升就能很好地将之实现。
帕拉第奥进一步敏锐地指出,在高地上,“居
民们健康快乐,保持着良好的肤色,不受蚊
虫和其他因沼泽静水腐烂所衍生的小动物侵
扰”[11]。虽然当时的人们并不知道蚊子会传播
疟疾,但帕拉第奥的观察阐明了蚊子与引发
疟疾的环境状况或不健康的空气状态有着较
大联系。正是由于这种正确的关联,在高地
寻求循环流通的空气是一个良好的健康建议。
正如罗伯特·萨拉雷斯如今所证实的那样,
蚊子“是弱小的飞行者,不喜欢向上飞行,也
不喜欢有风的地方”[13]。在考虑威尼斯周围的
内陆或罗马周围平原的类似情况时,我们意
识到,进入高地是那些能够从低洼的农业耕
作区搬离的人的特权。因此,疟疾造成了不
平等的局面。在区域范围内,教皇西克斯图
斯五世(Pope Sixtus V)甚至出台政策,通过
将定居点从低地转移到更健康的山丘来改善
人口的整体健康状况。然而具有讽刺意味的
是,西克斯图斯五世于 1590 年参观完一项由
他发起的土地开垦项目后死于疟疾 [13]。在区
域尺度上,迁往高地意味着地形风险的增加。
对于圆厅别墅,笔者将探讨通过设计提升高
度和透气性所带来的健康效果。
在帕拉第奥的《建筑四书》的插图中,标
注了埃莫别墅和圆厅别墅的底层高度分别为
11 英尺和 10 英尺。需要说明的是,该标注采
用的是以往的维琴察尺寸,每英尺可能更接
14 英寸,而不是如今的 12 英 寸 (现 1英寸
=0.025 4 m。此外,帕拉第奥将他设计的大
部分别墅都抬高到了周围土地之上。与帕拉
第奥同时代的建筑师塞巴斯蒂亚诺·塞利奥
Sebastiano Serlio)在其《建筑七书》第六册中
解释了抬升别墅的重要性:“我一直认为城市
外的房屋(以及城市内的房屋,只要相邻的建
筑物不受此限制)应从地面上被抬升。这样做
是为了让建筑外立面更宏伟,底层房间更健
康,同时使地下室发挥作用,成为别墅中所
有仆人的工作间……”[19]
他的建议非常明确,抬升的地坪使建筑
立面具有象征意义的优势,改善了室内环境
的健康状况,并利用了相应的半地下空间。
对塞利奥而言,他强调将一座典型的别墅抬
5英尺(1英尺 =0.304 8 m,将地下室再下
5英尺,这使得帕拉第奥式建筑显得更加宏
伟。但无论如何,这个建议体现了一种明显的
呼吸不平等:通过迫使为他们服务的人进入地
下室这种不健康的环境,主人、家人和客人在
地上楼层的房间内获得健康。帕拉第奥通过将
该案例与人类信仰进行类比,为这一不平等做
法寻求合理化解释:
“正如我们称颂的造物主所告诫的那样
最美丽的事物应置于最明显、醒目的地方,
而不那么美的东西要加以隐蔽;所以在建筑中
也是……因此,我认为在建筑结构的最底层
也就是地下室中,可以布置地窖……仆人室
洗手间、烤箱和存放日常用品。[11]
这个论点可能在 16 世纪足够有说服力,
但今天它并不成立,特别是因为地下空间布
局仍然体现了以往的压迫模式。例如隐蔽门
廊(cryptoportio)旨在隐藏奴隶的地下服务通
道,或在私人监狱(ergastulum)中用锁链囚禁
奴隶迫使其在地下过夜或被判处长期劳作 [8]
无论是哪种情况,对于被关押在地下的仆人
或奴隶来说,都受制于封闭的、视线无法看
出去的地下空间。除了形成地下服务空间外,
抬高别墅底层还有另一个好处,那就是看向
别墅外部的视点提高,使得广阔田野中的劳
动者清晰可见。
帕拉第奥除描述圆厅别墅位于一座小山
顶上,一侧被河流包围的位置外,进一步阐
述了圆厅别墅的选址。他写道“在另一边,
周围环绕着最令人愉悦的斜坡,看起来像一
个非常大的剧院,并且经过精心栽植,有着
最优质的果实和最精致的葡萄藤。因此,从
别墅的每个角落都可以欣赏到最美丽的景色,
其中有些景致互为遮掩,有些则更为开阔,
而有的景致视线深远直至消失于地平线。[11]
当今天读到这段话时,我们倾向于想象风景
本身是美丽的,但仔细看,会发现帕拉第奥
强调了农田突出的视觉效果。事实上,在帕
拉第奥去世后 20 年,克劳德· 兰(Claude
Lorrain)和尼古拉斯·普桑(Nicolas Poussin
才出生,他们通过对疟疾肆虐的罗马平原的
绘画创作,继续塑造西方的风景观念 [20]。在
别墅中观赏劳动者的工作,是一种既定的令
人愉悦的审美范式。早在多年前,几代有影
响力的罗马作家就强调了这一模式,其中包
括马尔库斯·图留斯·西塞罗(Marcus Tullius
Cicero、小普林尼Gaius Plinius Caecilius
3 圆厅别墅轴测图,强调从地坪高度以上进行视线控制
The Villa Rotonda, emphasizing visual control from elevation
苍穹的神圣指引
对外的视线控制
Divine
sanction
Visual control
3
112
Landscape Architecture 2021/10
Secundus)和马格努斯·奥勒留斯·卡西奥多
鲁斯(Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus。卡西奥多
鲁斯曾称赞一座别墅拥有许多房间,可以看
到人们“迷人地劳动”[8]。更直接的是,我们
可以从塞利奥的建议中认识到“有些人希望
不断地查看他们的农民在做什么,并密切关
注他们的来来往往”[19]。塞利奥建议将劳工宿
舍靠近主体住宅但保持分离。当然,持续监
视劳工的劳动并不是良性的行为;反过来看,
这是在行使一种控制工人行为的权力。圆厅
别墅的显著特点之一是对周围景观的开放性。
帕拉第奥早期的许多别墅都有围墙,在帕拉
第奥之前,别墅通常被设计为带护城河与炮
楼的防御工事。在认识到乡村中的威胁、风
景和安全之间的关系时,圆厅别墅可以被理
解为一种新的权力展示形式。视线从圆厅别
墅内部向外,掠过一片片田地投向远方,而
田地中有许多劳工在劳作。然而,尽管财富
和获得食物的机会极度不平等,但庄园主声
称不需要人身保护。考虑到安全问题和人身
威胁,从田地到圆厅别墅的视线同样重要。
别墅的抬升使劳工始终处于庄园主的视野之
中,并建立了持续监视的关系。因此,圆厅
别墅成为“心理征服”的典型,通过投射庄
园主的权力和影响力,使整片土地上人们的
生活都受其影响和控制 [14]
前文讨论了“注意力恢复理论”,这是关
于自然接触对心理健康促进机制的既有理论。
另一个理论是杰·阿普尔顿(Jay Appleton)在
1975 年出版的《景观的体验》
The Experience
of Landscape
)中提出的“瞭望 庇护理论”
该理论推测人类在进化过程中形成了一种既
希望看到外界同时又不想被外界看到的景观偏
好,或者更确切地说,通过同时拥有开阔的视
野和隐秘的居所这两种可以看得见的保护,人
们得以免受威胁,从而有更大的机会保持健
康。这一理论与从圆厅别墅向外眺望时所看
到的“美丽景色”非常吻合。然而,该理论
忽略了讨论在更为复杂的社会和政治因素影
响下,权力是如何决定各阶层对不同高程空
间的使用这一问题。例如,人们都知道控制
高地对军事成功的重要性。同样,当阿普尔
顿描述“将前景延伸到花园庇护所以外的乡
村”,然后“合乎逻辑地基于美学目的对更广
阔的景观进行改造,最初是通过将道路延伸
到围墙的界限之外而实现的”。当然不能如此
理想化地相信,将景观与基础设施和农业用
地结合全然是出于美学的目的 [21]。如果像阿
普尔顿所说,早期的景观设计是“将房屋或城
堡延伸到户外的一种形式”,那么还应记住罗
马历史学家普布利乌斯·科尔涅利乌斯·
西 陀(Publius Cornelius Tacitus)的言论
前,不良自然条件通常是被回避或克服,自
然是……被控制的;一种新的空间表达方式是
寻求)将户外环境驯化。[21-22] 换句话说,被
驯化的不仅仅是自然,还有仆人和劳动者,他
们从身体和象征意义上都与自然息息相关。精
英们为了自己的利益而调节空气,而对于内陆
居民来说,这意味着他们要么屈服于被俯瞰的
监视中,要么隐藏在看不见的地下室。在这两
种情况下,大多数人在精神上和身体上都处于
不健康的状态。建筑和景观使个人处于被监视
的负面心理影响之中、面临感染疟疾的更大风
险和遭受蓄意的不人道待遇。由于这一观念所
带来的持续影响,使人充分认识到 16 世纪建
筑、园林和景观中隐藏的压迫历史是有研究价
值的。以劳伦·帕特里奇(Loren Partridge)的
结论为例,他认为:“圆厅别墅成为文艺复兴
时期最具影响力的建筑作品,也是全世界数
百座政府大楼的设计蓝本。广受欢迎的原因
在于政府希望宣扬的理念与设计所传达出的
信息密切对应
稳定、集中、等级、统一
与和谐,以及地球以方形和立方体为象征
和天堂(以圆形和半球表示)之间的协调。[18]
显然,设计所表达的不仅仅是稳定性、
层次感与和谐,透视关系也很重要。对于某
些人来说,圆厅别墅代表着压迫、监视、征
服、不平等和风险,而这主要是通过对地坪
高度的严格把控以及随之而来的对大气和健
康空气的调节而实现的。
4  结论
安德烈亚·帕拉第奥的建筑四书》时
至今日仍然是最有影响力的建筑书籍之一
众所周知,他的这部著作对建筑和风景园林
行业的影响甚至比其建筑作品更为深远。他
的书中最突出的特点是对于精确性和简洁性
的重视[23]。正如黛博拉
·霍华德Deborah
Howard)所写的那样:“清晰也是写作的精髓。
虽然这本书本质上是理论性的,但帕拉第奥
的写作却很好地从抽象哲学的表述中抽离出
来 。” [23] 然而,笔者相信正是由于缺乏哲学讨
论,在一定程度上引发了人们对书中内容的持
续回应。通过拟建和已建别墅的实测图和平面
图对比表明,建筑可以脱离文化时代背景、物
质景观和政治环境而存在。而实际情况远非如
此,在埃莫别墅和圆厅别墅的案例中,帕拉第
奥有意通过设计来改善庄园主以及他们所居住
的大环境的健康状况。然而,在实施这些建造
行为的同时,却因为损害了其他人享有健康环
境的同等权利而造成了结构性不平等。
呼吸不平等是一面透镜,有助于探索植
物和人类如何在环境中自由呼吸以及相互的作
用机制。在埃莫别墅,工人们在种植珍稀水稻
的灌溉田里挣扎着呼吸;而圆厅别墅的设计则
揭示了贵族们为占据高位和呼吸清洁空气所采
取的措施。在这个案例中,别墅通过分配空
气、水和土地等资源的使用权限以促进庄园主
等少数特权阶层的健康。然而,正如我们所看
到的,威尼斯精英们的健康是通过剥夺其他人
的同等权利来加以保障的。在全面理解帕拉第
奥式建筑对健康的影响之后,同样需要关注当
代在创造健康世界的过程中,实践和设计领域
出现的不平等现象。鉴于目前在全球范围内为
控制空气传播疾病所做的斗争,呼吸和空气循
环受到高度关注。然而,呼吸本应是人类之间
平等共享的一种行为。正如阿喀琉斯·姆本贝
Achille Mbembe)指出的那样,基于这一事实,
可能要“超越纯粹的生物学含义,而将呼吸视
为人类共同拥有的东西”,因此可以将呼吸理
解为普遍权利的基础和设计生成的驱动力 [3]
参考文献 (References)
[1] World Health Organization. Constitution of the World
Health Organization (1946)[EB/OL]. [2021-04-02]. https://
apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/268688?show=full.
[2] PATUANO A. Biophobia and Urban Restorativeness[J].
Sustainability, 2020, 12(10): 1-23.
[3] MBEMBE A. The Universal Right to Breathe[J]. SHREAD
C, translation. Critical Inquiry, 2021, 47: 61.
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
113
[4] COSGROVE D. The Palladian Landscape: Geographical
Change and Its Cultural Representations in Sixteenth-
Century Italy[M]. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1993.
[5] KINGZETT C T. Natures Hygiene: A Systematic Manual
of Natural Hygiene[M]. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox,
1888: 159.
[6] ACKERMAN J. The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country
Houses[M]. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990.
[7] HARDY M. Study the Warm Winds and the Cold:
Hippocrates and the Renaissance Villa[M]// KENDA B.
Aeolian Winds and the Spirit in Renaissance Architecture:
Academia Eolia Revisited. London: Routledge, 2006.
[8] MARZANO A. Roman Villas in Central Italy: A Social and
Economic History[M]. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
[9] PURCELL N. The Roman Villa and the Landscape of
Production[M]// CORNELL T J, LOMAS K. Urban Society in
Roman Italy. London: Routledge, 1995: 174.
[10] WUNDRAM M, PALLADIO A, PAPE T, et al. Andrea
Palladio,1508-1580: Architect Between the Renaissance
and Baroque[M]. Köln: Taschen, 2004: 165, 169.
[11] PALLADIO A. The Four Books of Architecture[M]. New
York: Dover Publications, 1965.
[12] DAY F, FORBES G. Notices[J]. Journal of the Society
for Arts, 1883, 31: 646.
[13] SALLARES R. Malaria and Rome: A History of Malaria
in Ancient Italy[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
[14] STACKELBERG K T V. The Roman Garden[M].
London: Routledge, 2009.
[15] SPENCER D. Roman Landscape: Culture and Identity[M].
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010: 138.
[16] GIANNETTO R F. Greens After the Italian Way: the
Landscape of the Venetian Mainland Through the Lens of
the Grand Tour[J]. Studies in the History of Gardens and
Designed Landscapes, 2016, 36(3): 147.
[17] GIANNETTO R F. Writing the Garden in the Age of
Humanism: Petrarch and Boccaccio[J]. Studies in the History
of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, 2003, 23(3): 247.
[18] PARTRIDGE L. Art of Renaissance Venice 1400-
1600[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015: 292.
[19] SERLIO S. Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture (Volume
Two) [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
[20] WRIGLEY R. The Roman Campagna Revisited: Art &
Environment[J/OL]. Tate Papers, 2012[2021-04-02]. https://
www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/17/the-
roman-campagna-revisited.
[21] APPLETON J. The Experience of Landscape[M].
Hoboken: Wiley, 1975.
[22] COMITO T. The Idea of the Garden in the Renaissance
[M]. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1978: 153.
[23] HOWARD D. Four centuries of literature on Palladio[J].
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 1980,
39(3): 226.
图片来源:
1由作者改绘自Luigi Torelli
Carta della malaria
dellItalia
1882 年 ); 23由作者改绘自Ottavio
Bertotti Scamozzi
Le fabbriche e i disegni di Andrea
Palladio
1776 年)。
(编辑 /刘玉霞 李卫芳)
0 Introduction
Health is not a neutral state but a positive
condition. The World Health Organization (WHO)
defines health as “a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease or inrmity.”[1] The WHO also
acknowledges the interplay between environmental
and individualized factors in determining health
outcomes, and they increasingly recognize that
access to nature significantly promotes overall
health. Mirroring the WHO’s definition, the
pathways involved include “physiological processes
(clean air, etc.), physical process (by offering
opportunities for physical activity), social process
(by increasing the likelihood of social contact)
and psychological process (such as relaxation and
restoration).”[2] Within this framework, the two
most influential theories to explain the positive
impacts of natural environments on human health
are the Attention Restoration Theory and Prospect-
Refuge Theory. Ultimately the fundamental and
universal right to breathe freely is necessary for
any relevant measure of health, as without both an
environment of clean air and unobstructed airways,
it is impossible to live a healthy life[3].
With varying degrees of success over the
years, building and landscape architects have sought
to design environments to realize good health. One
of the best known and most frequently imitated
efforts is the work of sixteenth-century Venetian
patricians and professionals who constructed
rural villas to reshape the
terraferma
and situate
themselves in the center of a harmonious
relationship with nature[4]. Before being reshaped
by their efforts, the low-lying Venetian
terraferma
was a significant habitat for mosquitoes. Though
not as bad as the Roman
Campagna
,
the
terraferma
was still considered unhealthy (Fig. 1). While it was
not until the nineteenth century that mosquitoes
were known to transmit malarial disease, during the
sixteenth century, malaria, or
mal’ aria
in Italian, was
believed to be an environmental condition of bad
air. It was an accepted belief that decaying organic
matter in marshy and damp landscapes produced an
airborne poison[5]. The design of a villa, including
landscapes, gardens, and architecture, was deployed
to reorganize the properties of air, water, and land,
as well as associated human activities and the lives
of plants and animals, all to promote good air and
the health of a few privileged landowners. This act
of utopian world-building organized the physical
environment to control atmospheric conditions,
and ultimately the health of all living beings.
This essay will study two of Andrea Palladio’s
well-known villas constructed in the sixteenth
century on the
terraferma
outside of Venice as a
means to reveal a consistent system of oppression
and unequal access to conditions that enable
environmental and personal health. In both
cases, designs to promote health will contrast
with corresponding and intentionally designed
conditions of oppression. I will focus this study
on atmospheric inequality, defined as the unjust
distribution of access to breathe freely in an
environment with good air. Furthermore, I will
show that a positive state of health for sixteenth-
century Venetians was not just made available to
a privileged few but actively required the direct
negation of healthy conditions for many unknown
and unnamed others. A Venetian’s ability to be
healthy and live in a healthy environment required
dispossessing others of the same rights. In this
Towards a Landscape of Equality: Design of the
Palladian Villa to Control Access to Health
Author: (CAN) Fionn Byrne Translator: LUO Rongrong
114
Landscape Architecture 2021/10
context, to breathe freely was made possible by
limiting the respiration of others, while efforts to
secure fresh air resulted in other environments
being made unhealthy.
Considering the contemporary challenges
of designing for health, especially given the
COVID-19 pandemic that has prematurely and
permanently ended the breathing of millions
of people worldwide, this essay will expose
past injustice to help mitigate and avoid further
expansion of structural inequalities. Let us
endeavour in our time to nd it unacceptable that
the health of a few comes at the expense of the
health of many.
1 Controlling the
Terraferma
Modern capitalism emerged in city-states of
the fifteenth and sixteenth century. The Republic
of Venice, for example, had a robust and highly
profitable system of mercantilism that saw the
nobility acquire considerable personal fortunes. As
trade routes began to diversify when the Republic
of Genoa expanded transatlantic shipping, the
Venetian nobility, known as patricians, began to
invest their prots beyond the city’s fortications.
As Venice acquired territory on the mainland, called
the
terraferma
as a means to distinguish this solid
ground from the Venetian islands, the Republic
began to develop an agrarian economy. This change
prompted Girolamo Priuli, the ruler of Venice, to
express disappointment at the number of patricians
who had abandoned maritime activities for country
life, even though investment in land proved to be
more protable than shipping[6]. This is especially
true in the case of marginal marshlands that
were reclaimed and subsequently brought into
productive agricultural use.
Despite the claiming of former marshlands
by private individuals, the work to coordinate,
nance, and carry out hydraulic schemes emerged
as a subject of public concern, as demonstrated
by the 1501 establishment of a Ministry of
Water. Advised by the Ministry, a newly emerging
profession of surveyor-engineers rendered land
productive by controlling the hydraulic regime of
vast low-lying territories. The cumulative result
of these numerous geometrically regular acts of
drainage amounted to a radical environmental
transformation[4]. Both drainage and irrigation
controlled the interactions between water and
land, turned marshes into elds, and consequently
reduced malaria. We can recognize today that
drainage would have eliminated mosquito breeding
grounds. However, for sixteenth-century Venetians,
to cure noxious air and make the land healthy
required bringing water into circulation and
clearing the land of decaying plant matter. The
often-cited Hippocratic text
Airs, Waters, Places
grounded this belief in a long-enduring theory that
“air was the carrier of disease engendered in water
and among vegetation.”[7] Thus, to achieve a state
of environmental health, one must avoid stagnant
waters, contaminated air, and decaying vegetation.
When building on the
terraferma
, architects tried
to avoid siting residences in unhealthy locations
and designed site modifications to overcome the
existing natural conditions. In this way, architecture
and nature were not separate realms but bound by
design considerations of health. In no case was this
interplay more apparent than in the construction
of the villa.
The term “villa” denotes a combination
of buildings and land engaged in agricultural
production. When constructed on the
terraferma
,
we can refer specifically to the villa as a
villa
rustica
, or a country villa. “Rustica,” however,
was only a term later applied to distinguish
mainland
terraferma
sites from coastal locations,
which would be called
villa maritima
, and will
remain outside the scope of this study[8]. As the
preeminent site of agricultural production, the
villa type includes rationally organized working
elds, a courtyard which serves as a threshing oor,
a barn or
barchesse
, and a temporary residence
for the owner, or “master,” of the property. The
landowner’s residence also serves an agrarian
function by storing the excesses of production
above and below the living quarters, with gain
lifted to the attic and wine stored below ground.
In this way, the hierarchical nature of the residence
building becomes a symbol representing the power
over production, storage, and security that the villa
provided[9].
The most celebrated villa architect of the
sixteenth century was Andrea Palladio. His work
has had a significant impact on the development
of European and North American architecture
and gardening, and many historians have
intensively studied his legacy[4]. By focusing on
the relationships between architecture, landscape,
gardens, and health, this essay will show that
achieving conditions for good health was a
signicant driver of Palladio’s work. However, his
villa designs simultaneously produced structural
inequalities in accessing those healthy living
conditions. I will explore the Villa Emo through
the context of water and agricultural labour and
the Villa Rotonda through the lens of air and visual
control. In so doing, I will show that determinants
of health in design are far from apolitical. Instead,
our continued efforts to design a healthy world
must recognize moments of unequal access.
In
The Palladian Landscape
, Denis Cosgrove
reminds us that “as usual in human affairs, it was
the weakest, those with the smallest stake in society,
who paid the heaviest burden, while the rich and
powerful, patrician landowners – both Venetian
and provincial – amassed lands and fortunes at
their expense.”[4] Just as for lands and fortunes,
perhaps personal health is secured only by denying
it to others. If, however, this is not true, then the
challenge for designers today must address and
counteract Cosgrove’s “as usual.” Recognizing that
building and landscape architects of the past have
worked to construct a purposefully oppressive
world draws our attention to the need to undo the
legacies of these structural inequalities and avoid
perpetuating the continued exploitation of the
weakest members of our society in the future.
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
115
2 Water, Irrigation, and Labour at the
Villa Emo at Fanzolo
One of the Venetian patrician families that
benefited from publicly-funded improvements
to non-arable lands was the Emos. Even half a
century before the Ministry of Water’s formation,
an irrigation canal had already been built in
the Treviso plain, bringing the territory under
hydraulic control. Here, in the region of Fanzolo,
Giorgio Emo was one of the first landholders.
His son, Leonardo di Giovanni Emo inherited
this property and acquired more land in 1509,
continuously investing in making farming of the
estate profitable. Leonardo’s efforts succeeded,
and two generations later, his grandson, Leonardo
di Alvise Emo, commissioned Andrea Palladio
to build a new villa at the center of his inherited
family property. Construction of the Palladian villa,
which began around 1555, signaled a reinvestment
in the property[10]. Not surprisingly, Palladio
designed the villa building as a direct symbol of
the family’s continuous prosperity from the land.
While a display of wealth is not evidenced in the
architectural treatment of the exterior façade or in
the column order of the loggia, which was rather
plain, instead, it is the proportions of the building
that communicate proper land management and
agricultural productivity[10]. Palladio directs us to see
that “the cellars, the granaries, the stables, and the
other places belonging to a villa, are on each side
of the master’s house,” and these two wings extend
symmetrically from the residence at the center
(Fig. 2). While adjacent farming wings are typical
of villa architecture, these wings are unusually long
in the case of the Villa Emo[10]. Their irregular
length denotes abundance from a surplus harvest
that requires additional storage, and by extension,
the wings represent an accumulation of wealth.
Furthermore, the Emo’s emphasis on
prosperity extended back out from the villa
building to the surrounding elds and the family’s
choice of crops. Taking advantage of the nearby
canal, the Emo family redirected water to their
property and irrigated their fields. This practice
conformed to the general advice on villa siting.
Palladio, for example, said of site selection that “if
navigable rivers cannot be had, one must endeavor
to build near some other running water; and
above all to get at a distance from standing waters,
because they generate very bad air.”[11] Typically,
bringing running water to the villa grounds helped
grow wheat and secure a domestic supply necessary
to feed the general population. Indeed, the high
demand for wheat prompted the construction of
water distribution canals in the first place. Yet, at
the Villa Emo, irrigation was used contrary to the
Venetian dietary need. Instead, intensive irrigation
helped cultivate rice, an extremely protable luxury
grain quickly sold to an international market[4]. The
accumulation of personal and intergenerational
wealth through the leveraging of public
infrastructure became so widespread among the
elite that almost half of all rice cultivation in the
Venetian Republic was terminated by proclamation
after the end of the sixteenth-century[4].
Growing a luxury crop instead of meeting
the dietary needs of the local population is itself
an injustice, but rice cultivation had other negative
ramifications. On the one hand, rice cultivation
was labour intensive, both in terms of the number
of workers required and the physical demands of
the task. What’s more, the workers, housed across
Villa Emo’s main road, were in a highly precarious
situation, as they were themselves landless and
often paid with cash in a
boaria
system of wage
labour[12]. If a shortage of wheat drove up the
price of food, then cash wages would be much
less valuable than a guaranteed meal. On the other
hand, the irrigation of elds to grow rice required
a landscape with standing water, and precisely as
Palladio had warned, this resulted in an elevated risk
of contracting malaria. While it is hardly possible
to make matters worse, the presence of standing
water denied workers the shade that olive trees or
grape vines would otherwise give when interplanted
in well-drained wheat fields. As a result, workers
experienced food, housing, and land insecurity, that
weakened their individual health while being forced
to labour in an unhealthy environment. Describing
a similar situation in the agricultural lands of
the Roman
Campagna
further south, Robert
Sallares restates this grim summary from Renato
Mammucari, “Between the certain death from
starvation and the probable death caused by the
Anopheles
mosquito, the latter was almost always
preferred… men defied death in order to make a
living.[13] The Emo family’s excessive prots, spent
for their pleasure and good health, ultimately cost
many others their lives.
One signicant expenditure within the family
residence, and distanced from any threatening
malarial fields, is a series of frescoes drawn
of imaginary views of the exterior landscape
that existed behind the walls. In a spectacular
inversion of reality, these views do not just depict
an exaggerated healthy life enjoyed in a state of
absolute abundance but illustrate a total erasure
of labour from the fields. If, as argued, garden
paintings are an idealized representation of the
world, then utopian visions of sixteenth-century
Venetian patricians denied the very existence of the
labouring class that made their lifestyle possible[14].
This pictorial act of erasure continued a trend
that had been described many years earlier by the
Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro, who said,
“the more the villa system was rened as a market-
oriented, profit-motivated enterprise, the more
important it became to make a separation between
profits of agriculture… and the means by which
those profits were realised, and to gloss over the
latter.”[8] Indeed, Varro’s characterization of the
villa system has been extended by contemporary
scholars who indict landscape and garden design at
large and argue that “the term ‘landscape’
always
veils the reality of rural labour and social inequality,
transforming the countryside into escapist scenery
rather than a place of work (or a place from which
authentic ‘workers’ have been cleared).”[15] The logic
of pictorial erasure that represented an idealized
116
Landscape Architecture 2021/10
landscape inside the villa is also physically built in
the world outside the villa building, especially in the
surrounding gardens.
While descriptions of the Villa Emo’s
original garden are sparse, Palladio does make
several comments: “behind the fabrick,” or the
architectural plan, “there is a square garden of
eighty
campi trevigiani
,” approximately one
hundred acres, and “in the middle of which runs a
little river, which makes the situation very delightful
and beautiful.”[11] This “beautiful” water feature
reminds us that the garden outside, as with the
illusory interior views, is defined as an idealized
microcosm of the surrounding landscape[16]. The
garden reconstructs the essential qualities of
the surrounding horizontal expanse of irrigated
and cultivated land. Yet, what marks the garden
as distinct from the surrounding landscape, for
example, the fields, the orchard, or the kitchen
garden, is that even from its first conception, it
emerges as a site of leisurely labour. “No toil is
contemplated in the gardens,” or so remarks the
fourteenth-century Florentine writer Giovanni
Boccaccio, who is said to have rst described the
garden as a distinct type[17]. However, we know that
a landscape will not remain in a “delightful” state
without work, especially a garden at so large a scale.
So, it is not a fundamental question of labour that
distinguished the garden from the surrounding
landscape, but rather it is the imagined qualities of
that work that set the garden apart. The garden is
an interstitial space, between the luxurious interior
and the laborious elds, that the elite participated
in cultivating, although without their labour being
materially productive[6]. Productivity is, after all,
what distinguishes exercise from work in the elds,
having the means to labour without the need.
Therefore, the garden is removed from protable
use and instead given over to therapeutic activities
such as walking, swimming, eating, talking, and
sleeping[14]. This sentiment is shared by the Roman
poet, Quintus Horatius Flaccus, where “for Horace,
the value of his garden lies not in its productive
capacity, but in the respite from the irritations and
concerns of city living and in the pleasure of social
one-upmanship.”[14] The display of social status
is now easy to understand: removing land from
productive use is a clear display of excess wealth,
especially given a context where labourers struggle
for resources without access to any land of their
own. Respite from the stress of the city is worth
examining further.
Returning our attention to the various
pathways to health provided by natural
environments, including physiological, physical,
social, and psychological processes, the garden is
unequivocally a space that promotes overall health.
Having already touched on some physiological
(organization of water), physical (exercise), and
social (display of power and wealth) aspects of
the garden, we must consider the psychological
processes at work as well. Rachel and Stephen
Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory is one of
the most popular frameworks to explain the health
benefits of green spaces. While the Kaplans did
not publish their foundational text
The Experience
of Nature: A Psychological Perspective
until
1989, it is argued that psychological determinants
of health have longstanding evolutionary causes.
If this is true, then we should witness the same
environmental pathways to health operating today
as in the sixteenth century.
The Attention Restoration Theory argues
that humans have two distinct modes of attention,
direct and indirect. Direct attention is active when
one is mentally focused on a task at hand, while
indirect attention is engaged when the mind is at
rest. The theory is grounded by the assertion that
when one mode of attention is active, the other can
recover. Thus, for the city dweller whose daily tasks
demand direct attention, time in nature provides
an opportunity to engage indirect attention and
restore their depleted reserves. As we have already
seen, Horace has articulated the same principle,
with the greatest value of his garden being a “respite
from the irritations and concerns of city living.
We can comfortably conclude that for the Venetian
patrician, the garden is a space that contributes
to overall health. However, when we consider the
day labourers in the fields of a sixteenth-century
villa, the Attention Restoration Theory requires
reevaluation. According to the theory, we could
logically conclude that by spending extended time
in nature, repeating agricultural motions made
automatic through repetition, labourers would be
the healthiest class in society. They need only to
engage in strenuous direct mental exertion every
once in a while, to recover their depleted indirect
attention. This situation is, of course, far from
the truth. While those who worked the elds were
immersed fully in nature, its healing qualities were
only available to the elites. As James Ackerman
recounts, “history records little evidence that
farmers, peasants or slaves – who have no option
but to stay put – experienced the charms of rural
life depicted in the villa literature. Indeed, it was
typically by the sweat of the labourer’s brow that
the delights of rusticity were made available to the
proprietors.”[6]
The Villa Emo controlled water to irrigate
highly productive rice fields. Exporting rice
generated prots later invested in the architecture
and gardens’ physical and symbolic structures,
which improved the family’s health. However, the
same set of spatial decisions directly impacted the
health of many more individuals. Standing water on
the irrigated elds increased the likelihood of dying
by contracting malaria, and labourers exchanged
their physical wellbeing in a constant struggle to
secure food and shelter. This example has shown
that the affordances of health that nature provides
are meaningless without acknowledging the social
and political circumstances that structure an
individual’s life. Of course, it is not just labourers
that risk contracting malaria. While wealthy
Venetians could generally reduce their exposure
by spending the summer at their villas outside the
city, mosquitoes still spread in ways that matched
the Venetian’s belief in the dispersion patterns
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
117
of vapours emanating from dangerous stagnant
waters. As we will see, in an attempt to counter the
unhealthy qualities of air, Palladio’s Villa Almerico
conferred health to the landowner while continuing
patterns of oppression and atmospheric inequality.
3 Air, Elevation, and Surveillance at
the Villa Almerico at Vicenza
Upon returning home to the Venetian
terraferma
after retiring from religious service
in the Vatican, the priest Paolo Almerico,
commissioned Andrea Palladio to design his
new residence a quarter-mile outside the city of
Vicenza. Construction on his home, which came
to be known as the Villa Rotonda, would have
begun shortly after Almerico’s retirement in 1565.
The work that Palladio conceived remains the
most celebrated of his villas, even called the most
inuential example of Renaissance architecture[18].
The design displays several notable differences
from the Villa Emo, and as described by Palladio,
the Rotonda does not even conform to the
conventional definition of a villa. It has neither
a courtyard for threshing grains nor opposing
barchesse
extensions. Instead, only a summer
residence sits among gardens and agricultural
lands. Without adjacent service buildings, the
primary residence can capitalize on four bilaterally
symmetrical entries mirrored around a central
domed room (Fig. 3). This novel approach to a
country residence led Palladio to count the Villa
Almerico among other town-houses instead of
with
terraferma
villas, such as the Villa Emo, in
his 1570
I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura
(
Four
Books Architecture
). Nonetheless, the Villa
Almerico did sit at the center of a generous walled
garden surrounded by working elds. After Paolo
Almerico, the second owner’s decision to add an
agricultural service building is further evidence
of the importance of these lands. Another
famous Venetian architect, Vincenzo Scamozzi,
designed the new outbuilding to sit alongside the
northwestern approach to the Rotonda.
Beyond architectural distinctions, the most
notable difference between the Villa Emo and
the Villa Almerico was their relative elevations.
The Villa Emo site was relatively flat, whereas
the Villa Almerico was at the top of a gentle rise.
In Palladio’s words, “the site is as pleasant and as
delightful as can be found; because it is upon a
small hill, of very easy access, and is watered on
one side by the
Bacchiglione
, a navigable river.[11]
As has been established in the example of the
Villa Emo, controlling water was a determinant
of environmental health. At the Villa Almerico,
I will argue that controlling air, achieved through
both elevation and architectural organization,
improved the health of the environment and
of the landholders. Simultaneously, strategies to
manage the atmosphere were unequally distributed
and led to more significant health risks, constant
surveillance, and further oppression of agricultural
labourers and villa servants.
Palladio elaborates on the advantageous
qualities of the Rotonda’s situation at the top of a
small hill in a general description of site selection.
As has been already noted, Palladio advised,
“above all to get a distance from standing waters,
because they generate a very bad air,” which,
he continues, “we may very easily avoid, if we
build upon elevated and cheerful places, where
the air is, by the continual blowing of the winds,
moved; and the earth, by its declivity, purged of
all ill vapours and moisture.”[11] For Venetians,
cool and dry blowing air, like running water, was
believed to be the healthiest situation and could
be best secured through elevation. Palladio makes
a further perceptive remark that at heights, “the
inhabitants are healthy and cheerful, and preserve
a good colour, and are not molested by gnats
and other small animals, which are generated by
the putrefaction of still fenny waters.”[11] While
remembering that mosquitoes were not known
at the time to carry the disease malaria, Palladio’s
observation clarifies that mosquitoes were
secondarily associated with the environmental
expression of malaria, or a state of unhealthy air.
Due to this correct association, the advice to seek
circulating air at elevation is a healthy suggestion.
As Robert Sallares conrms today, mosquitoes “are
weak iers, dislike ying upwards and dislike windy
locations.”[13] Rather immediately when considering
the
terraferma
surrounding Venice or the similar
relation of the
Campagna
around Rome, we are
aware that access to elevation is a privilege for
those who can remove themselves from the low-
lying agricultural fields. Malaria, then, creates a
topography of inequality. At a regional scale, Pope
Sixtus V even initiated policies to improve the
population’s overall health by shifting settlement
from low areas to the healthier hills. Ironically,
however, Sixtus V died in 1590 of malaria after
visiting one of his land reclamation efforts[13]. At
regional scales, access to elevation corresponds to
topographies of risk. Returning to the Rotonda, we
will consider the health consequences of designing
to gain height and permeability to air.
Illustrations of the Villa Emo and the Villa
Almerico in Palladio’s
Four Books of Architecture
annotate the villas’ ground floors at eleven feet
and ten feet, respectively. For clarity, each foot
is an outdated Vicenza measure likely closer to
fourteen inches instead of our twelve. Moreover,
Palladio raised the majority of his villas above their
surrounding lands. A contemporary of Palladio, the
architect Sebastiano Serlio explains the importance
of lifting a villa in the sixth book of his
Sette Libri
dell’Architettura
(
Seven Books of Architecture
):
“It has always been my opinion that houses
outside cities (and also those inside cities, provided
neighbouring buildings are not a constraint to
this) should be raised above general ground level.
This is so as to give grandeur to the appearance,
healthiness to the ground-oor rooms and so as to
have the commodity of the underground rooms
which will provide for all the servants’ workrooms
for the house...”[19]
His advice is clear, elevation provides
a symbolic advantage, improves the interior
118
Landscape Architecture 2021/10
environment’s health, and opens a corresponding
semi-submerged cavity. For his part, Serlio
prescribes lifting a typical house by five feet and
sinking the underground rooms by another five
feet, which makes Palladio’s measure seem even
grander. In any case, this advice demonstrates a
clear atmospheric inequality: rooms on the main
floor for the master of the house, his family and
guests, gain access to a healthy environment by
forcing those who serve them into an unhealthy
situation. Palladio rationalizes this inequality by
comparing the case to the human body:
As our Blessed Creator has ordered these
our members in such a manner, that the most
beautiful are in places most exposed to view, and
the less comely more hidden; so in building also…
I approve therefore that in the lowest part of the
fabric, which I make somewhat underground,
may be disposed the cellars… servantshalls, wash-
houses, ovens, and such like things necessary for
daily use[11].
This argument may have been sufficient in
the sixteenth century to excuse the subjugating of
others, but it will not hold today, especially because
the underground service area remains bound to
previous architectural modes of oppression. The
cryptoportico
, for example, underground service
tunnels designed to hide slaves from view, or the
ergastulum
, where chained slaves were confined
underground overnight or more permanently
sentenced to work[8]. In each case, for servants or
slaves, to be held underground was to be spatially
confined while being removed from view. In
addition to producing an underground service
space, there was another consequence of raising
the villa’s ground floor. Views out from the villa
were lifted and rendered labourers in the expansive
elds highly visible.
After describing the Rotonda’s location at
the top of a small hill and contained by a river
on one side, Palladio elaborates further on the
siting of the Villa Almerico. He writes, “on the
other [sides] it is encompassed with most pleasant
risings, which look like a very great theatre, and
are all cultivated, and abound with most excellent
fruits, and most exquisite vines: and therefore, as
it is enjoys from every part most beautiful views,
some of which are limited, some more extended,
and others that terminate with the horizon.”[11]
When we read this passage today, we are inclined to
imagine that it is the perspective of the landscape
itself that is beautiful, but looking carefully, we see
that Palladio emphasized the theatrical activity of
cultivating the elds. Indeed, it would still be two
decades after Palladio’s death that both Claude
Lorrain and Nicolas Poussin would be born and
go on to shape Western notions of landscape
through their paintings of the intensively malarial
Roman
Campagna
[20]. Organizing views from
a villa to enjoy watching labourers at work was
instead an established mode of aesthetic pleasure
emphasized years earlier by several generations of
inuential Roman writers, including Marcus Tullius
Cicero, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny
the Younger), and Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus.
Cassiodorus famously praised a villa for its many
rooms that provided views of people “charmingly
laboring.”[8] More immediately, we can read Serlio’s
advice that “there are some who wish to survey
continually what their peasants are doing and
to keep an eye on their comings and goings.”[19]
Serlio advises placing the labourers’ dormitories
close but separate from the primary residence. Of
course, continuous surveillance is not a benign
act; instead, it is an exercise of power to control
the workers’ behaviour. One of the distinguishing
qualities of the Villa Almerico is its openness to
the surrounding landscape. Many of Palladio’s
earlier villas included a perimeter wall, and before
Palladio, villas were commonly designed as fortied
units, complete with moats and defensive towers.
In recognizing a relationship in the countryside
between threats, views, and security, the Rotonda
can be read as a new form of the display of power.
From inside the Rotonda, views extend out to the
horizon across fields occupied by a large labour
force. However, despite the extreme inequality of
wealth and access to food, the owner asserts no
need for physical protection. Regarding safety and
pacifying threats, the view from the fields to the
Rotonda is equally important. The elevation of
the villa places it in constant view and establishes
a relationship of ongoing surveillance. The Villa
Almerico, then, acts as a model of “psychological
subjugation” by projecting the owner’s power
and influence over others’ lives out across the
landscape[14].
Earlier, we discussed the Attention
Restoration Theory, an established description
of a psychological pathway to health improved
by exposure to nature. A second framework is
the Prospect Refuge Theory that Jay Appleton
developed in his 1975 publication
The Experience
of Landscape
. The theory predicts that humans
have an evolutionary preference for landscapes
that confer the ability to see without being seen.
Or, more specically, we have the most signicant
opportunity to be healthy when visually protected
from threats, both by having expansive views and
places to hide. This theory aligns well with the
“beautiful views” made available to those looking
out from Villa Almerico’s prospect. However, the
theory omits a discussion of the more complicated
social and political implications of how power
operates across differential access to elevation.
None of us, for example, are unaware of the
importance of controlling high ground for military
success. Similarly, when Appleton described “the
extension of the prospect into the countryside
beyond the refuge of the garden,” which then “led
logically to the modication of the wider landscape
also for aesthetic purposes, initially by extending
the avenues beyond the limits of the enclosure,” we
cannot be so idealistic to believe that subjecting the
landscape to infrastructural and agricultural control
was done for detached aesthetic purposes[21]. If
early landscape design, according to Appleton, is “a
kind of extension of the house or castle into the
open air,” we should also remember the Roman
专题 2:风景园林的健康疗愈价值 / Special 2: The Health and Healing Value of Landscape Architecture
119
historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus’ observation
that “where nature had formerly been avoided
or overcome, it [is]… controlled; and a new kind
of spatial expression [seeks] to domesticate the
open air.”[21-22] In other words, it is not exclusively
nature that is being domesticated but also servants
and labourers who are physically and symbolically
bound to nature. For the
terraferma
population,
the elite’s control of the air for their benet meant
being either subjugated to constant observation
from above or hidden from view underground.
In both cases, the majority become subjected to
an unhealthy environment, both mentally and
physically. Architecture and landscape expose
individuals to the psychological impacts of
surveillance, to greater risk of contracting Malaria,
and to deliberate inhuman treatment. In part
because of its lasting signicance, recognizing this
history of oppression ensconced in the architecture,
gardens, and landscape of the sixteenth century is
a worthwhile endeavour. Take Loren Partridge’s
conclusion, for example, where he argues that: “ The
Villa Rotonda became the most inuential example
of Renaissance architecture. It constitutes the ur-
source of literally hundreds of governmental
buildings throughout the world. This enormous
popularity resulted from the close correspondence
between what governments wanted to believe
they represented and what the design expressed –
stability, focus, hierarchy, unity, harmony, and
mediation between earth (symbolized by the square
and cube) and heaven (signified by the circle and
hemisphere).” [18]
Clearly, the design expressed more than
stability, hierarchy, and harmony. Perspective
counts. For some, the Villa Rotonda would have
represented oppression, surveillance, subjugation,
inequality, and risk, primarily through the formal
command of elevation and consequent control of
atmosphere and healthy air.
4 Conclusion
Andrea Palladio’s
Four Books of Architecture
remains one of the most influential books on
architecture. His writing is known to have had a
more significant impact than his constructions
on the professions of building and landscape
architecture. What characterizes his book
above all else is the emphasis of his wiring on
precision and brevity[23]. As Deborah Howard
writes, “clarity is also the essence of the writing.
Although the book is essentially theoretical,
Palladio’s text is refreshingly free from abstract
philosophizing.”[23] However, I believe it is partly
this lack of philosophical discussion that elicits
new responses to the work. The measured and
detached architectural plans of proposed and
constructed villas suggest that architecture can
be divorced from a cultural moment, a physical
landscape, and a political environment. Nothing
is further from the truth. In the case of the Villa
Emo and Villa Almerico, Palladio made intentional
design decisions to improve the landowner’s health
and the health of the larger environment that they
occupied. However, these acts of construction
simultaneously produced structural inequalities in
accessing the same conditions of healthy living.
Atmospheric inequality is a lens to explore
the free access to and control of respiration
in plants, the breathing of humans, and the air
patterns of environments. At the Villa Emo,
labourers struggled to breathe in irrigated fields
of luxury crops. Through the Villa Almerico, we
explored patricians’ efforts to occupy elevated
positions and breathe clean air. In both cases, villa
organized the properties of air, water, and land
to promote a few privileged landowners’ health.
Still, as we have seen, a Venetian’s ability to be
healthy was secured by dispossessing others of the
same rights. More completely understanding the
consequences of Palladio’s architecture on health
calls for a comparable focus on contemporary
practice and ongoing designed inequality in access
to a healthy world. Given the current struggle to
control airborne disease transmission globally,
breathing and the circulation of air are rendered
highly visible. Yet respiration is also an act shared
between us. As Achille Mbembe notes, by this fact,
we might “conceive of breathing beyond its purely
biological aspect, and instead as that which we hold
in common,” we might conceive breathing as the
foundation of a universal right and a generative
driver of design[3].
Sources of Figures:
Fig. 1 adapted from Luigi Torellis
Carta della malaria
dellItalia
, 1882. Source: Fionn Byrne, 2021. Fig. 2-3
adapted from Ottavio Bertotti Scamozzis
Le fabbriche e
i disegni di Andrea Palladio
, 1776. Source: Fionn Byrne,
2021.
(Editors / LIU Yuxia, LI Weifang)
... Ya da bahçede kurgulanacak olan özel bir alanı barbekü alanına çevirmek, bireyler için farklı bir sosyalleşme alanı sağlayacaktır. Yaşam alanı çevresinde kurgulanacak peyzaj tasarımı, kullanıcıların fiziksel ve ruhsal sağlığını da olumlu yönde etkileyecektir (Byrne, 2021). Yeşil alanın ya da müstakil ev bahçesinin doğru tasarımı, komşu evlerle oluşacak iletişimi de kontrollü bir şekilde düzenleme seçeneği sunar. ...
Nature's Hygiene: A Systematic Manual of Natural Hygiene
  • Kingzett C T
KINGZETT C T. Nature's Hygiene: A Systematic Manual of Natural Hygiene[M]. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox, 1888: 159.
The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses
  • J Ackerman
ACKERMAN J. The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses[M]. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990.
  • Forbes G Day F
DAY F, FORBES G. Notices[J]. Journal of the Society for Arts, 1883, 31: 646.
Greens After the Italian Way': the
  • Giannetto R F
GIANNETTO R F. 'Greens After the Italian Way': the