Urban Planning and the Third Landscape in the Field of Local Development: Case Study

Introduction: First Approach To The Landscape And Its Geographical Contexts

The landscape interpreted from a functional perspective, as a link that unites the different terminologies related to this concept, as well as the human being with the geographical space, and from the value assigned to it as a representative of the historical evolution of human action, and as a conciliator with the environment and vital environments, it has been shaped around the correspondence of both the components resulting from human activity, as well as those other elements derived from nature. Even so, the landscape has managed to be treated as an indicator, molded by its own constituent elements, these are; the climates, the elements settled in rural environments, the reliefs, the vegetation of natural spaces, but, also, by the vegetal and floral masses of the urban spaces (among which are also included those sites in which, naturally, various biological systems emerge due to disuse and abandonment of the action of human). Starting from each and every one of these main elements of the landscape, it is possible to analyze the different scopes and meanings of the landscape concept (and even more, the real implication of the activities of the human being on it) (Sotelo Navalpotro, 1992). In fact, the diachrony of this concept has been presenting different ways of being expressed over the years, and acquiring, in turn, no less consequences with respect to its configuration and relationships. Regarding the first of these issues, we find the diverse conceptualization of the term landscape given by different authors -such as, for example, Pierre Fremont, González Bernáldez, George Bertrand or Claude Bertrand-, in the wonderful course of time, highlights not only the contradictory but also the polyvalence that the landscape concept supposes, since on many occasions it has been treated from a perspective, sometimes ecological, other geographical, other aesthetic, although the differentiation, as it could not be otherwise, it responds to the combination of scientific technicalities, on the one hand, and common language, on the other (to which should be added, of course, those descriptions from literary techniques whose ultimate purposes are incardinated to express the beauty and beauty of the reality that surrounds us) (Sotelo Navalpotro, 2015). In this sense, starting from the definition of Professor Mathieu Kessler, who understands that the landscape represents beauty, and who describes that “this is why the true landscape is beautiful. It is the disinterested aesthetic vision of a geographical space, of an ecumene, of an autarchic residence, protected, peaceful, order without external purpose”(Másmela Díaz, 2010); or, Professor Farinelli who, choosing from among all the possible concepts of landscape, describes as “precisely, the aesthetic character of bourgeois culture imposes [in the words of the professor], that artistic knowledge be transformed into science of nature, of mediation of vision: [and for these purely artistic reasons, the professor citing the Prussian Alexander von Humboldt, as one of the most significant fathers of Geography, saying about him as] for this reason, Humboldt chooses the concept of landscape and uses it as the most suitable vehicle to ensure the transit of the protagonists of the literary public dimension towards the domain of scientific culture” (Farinelli, 1992). Although perhaps the one that best fits within the purposes of this study is the one that Neil Smith introduce by showing how “the problem of course lies in the assumptions since, like that of “nature”, the concept of space tends to be considered as given and its meaning without problematizing, while in fact it is a vague one with a multiplicity of meanings, sometimes even contradictory” (Smith, 1984).