The question is especially important now, given the world’s rapidly increasing population and the accelerating drift of people from countryside to cities. Should we tinker or somehow revamp existing cities to cope, or should we build new places to dwell? — BBC News
Jonathan Glancey looks back through history, at attempts to create the ideal town. Given the many failed attempts, can architects succeed in shaping a truly habitable ideal city? He believes the answer is yes.
6 Comments
this didn't get very deep into the topic, or even really state what the inquiry is about. The basic question: what is an ideal city? There is more to urbanity than the old tropes of sunlight, parks, and light traffic.
And the second: what constitutes a planned city? Is NY's grid too laissez-faire to count? What about the ancient capitals like Beijing or Kyoto that started with a clear plan and grew into something else?
It's silly to look at cities as planned or unplanned. There is a scope of planning from rigidly specific to open-ended vision.
Washington DC and Canberra are 2 conspicuously absent case studies which seem to show architects can design plans for generally successful modern cities. But I think most architects would rather just design the buildings...
^ It’s the increasing disconnect between buildings & place…if architects could get that right we wouldn’t need “new” cities.
Carrera, I am not sure I understand your comment. You mean that architects aren't designing buildings that suitably reflect the distinct characteristics of a place? Maybe, but how does that relate to the 'demand' for new cities?
To which I'd note that most new cities seem to follow one of two models:
-government sponsored: cities built usually as new capitals which intend to reflect the ambitions and hoped-for prosperity of a group of people. Always centrally planned, and the design can be read as a projection the agenda of the politics driving the new state, and often intended to mark a break from the past. In this group modern new capitals such as Brasilia, Chandigarh, Islamabad, Canberra, Washington DC. And also historic capitals such as Beijing, Kyoto, Angkor Wat, St Petersburg. To a lesser extent, many organically built capitals like Paris and Rome exhibit some amount of central planning according to an architectural vision, though the core was built without any plan.
-economically driven: demand here isn't for a new city from the start, but changes in tranportation, or a new set of technologies lead to sustained business growth and demand for labor within a single location. The growth of business brings new employees and other businesses, who settle down and form the city. These cities might have an overall pattern for development based on organized land use plans, but tend to be very loosely guided, with no attempt at architectural control until maturity is reached. Almost all the large US cities, plus some newer mega cities like Sao Paulo, Singapore, Shanghai follow this model. What starts as a trade post turns into a city, and growth follows some plan, but not an architectural vision.
In neither case is the city built because there is a pre-exisitng need for new cities. They simply grow according to their own potential for economic and political power. Rather like plants from seeds: they grow because they can, not because they are needed.
Carrera, what do you mean by "place"?
Guess I was following midlander’s concluding words…”But I think most architects would rather just design the buildings”......agree with that, think most architects are designing on islands and it shows, there is no unifying of the adjoining sites, no sense of place, nothing is interconnected….like building homes in subdivisions…”Ticky-Tacky” boxes in a row in many regards.
This is largely the fault of governmental zoning….it’s beauty-by-number and its failing is driving various movements like New Urbanism & New Towns where the rules can be rewritten from scratch. Architects share the blame in that 90% of them just sit in their cute little studios watering their spider plants waiting for the phone to ring instead of leading their communities in understanding what the problems are and strongly advocating for change…instead of being good at reading the code they should be good at changing the code….then we wouldn’t need a “new town” - was my point.
“Sense of Place” -Foster a sense of authentic human attachment and belonging. It’s just - in one rat hole then out and into another rat hole…..no sense of attachment and belonging…which I believe is a leading contributor to what has corroded our society…..if the people who lead don’t give a shit then those who follow won’t either.
I advocate “tinkering” with what we’ve got, but we all know how that’s going.
I wrote a longer version of this, but didn't want bore you all.
Tinkering is not passe because -
1- It takes too long. "I want to know what it looks like now, and how I will benefit from it."
2- Being reflective about a place and your relation to it has become irrelevant to making cities (note the effect on criticism).
3- Reflection and critical thought has given way to performance outcomes.
4- Place is too frequently fabricated, ranging from new district development to small parcel scaled interventions meant to placate a neighborhood into thinking they are being recognized by the large development across the street.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.