I definitely agree with Jane Jacobs’ belief in the self-policing nature of a city, she essentially had faith in the safety of a crowded street of strangers. When walking late at night vulnerable in the darkness it is a relief to be in the company of a crowd of strangers. What turns me off of Jane Jacobs is her utter disdain for urban planners, more specifically Ebenezer Howard. Her ideas are more the product of common sense and empirical observation, not of any particular urban theorist brilliance.

Jane Jacobs’ attacks on Ebenezer Howard are based on misguided opinions of him and a general dislike for city planners. In her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs claims that Howard “hated the city.” I completely disagree with that sentiment. Howard did not hate the city, he simply acknowledged the squalor that eroded London, squalor resulting from the dense urban slums. He did not hate the city he sought to heal it. He sought to save it from the cancerous slums that were destroying it from the inside out.

Jane Jacobs also chastised Howard for his ignorance regarding the self-policing that she obsessed about. But her judgements of Howard’s city planning priorities are based on nothing more than her own urban experiences, she had no legitimate education or experience in the field of urban planning. Had she experienced 19th century London perhaps she would have looked more kindly at Howard’s Garden City urban scheme.

Jane Jacobs’ greatest gift regarding urban theory was her distinct ability to chronicle seemingly mundane urban happenings and make them significant to her readers. She could articulate herself very well. I just wish she could have put herself in the shoes of Howard, then she could have understand his motivations.

Ever since our brief discussion in class regarding the use of historic buildings for modern purposes, I have been thinking a lot more about this issue and how much it bothers me!  The jumping off point for our discussion was the Athens Charter and Le Corbusier’s discussion of historic sites.  He points out that the old and the new must not be mixed in architecture, for do to so would be to mix the false with the genuine.  I completely agree with this aspect of his views.  In housing, I get very annoyed when new homes are built in a historic or ‘retro’ style.  Kelowna’s Kettle Valley is a perfect example – 21st century homes built to look hundreds of years old in architectural design!

To me, the most visible example of mixing the historic with the modern is the use of historical sites for fast food restaurants.  The phenomenon of ‘fast food’ has only come into existence in the last half-century or so, and to me it is one of the ultimate symbols of our modern, 21st century age.  Fast food is a revolution (and not necessarily a good one!), not only in the food industry but in the entire habit of food consumption.  Even 60 years ago, there was no way to receive a (grease-laden) burger and fries in a matter of seconds.  Even more radically modern is the possibility of purchasing this food from the comfort of one’s automobile thanks to the invention of the drive thru.  Fast food is an ultimate symbol of the fast-paced, yet sedentary, lifestyle that has become the norm in our modern, technological world.  Now, I am not opposed to fast food as such – to be honest, I quite enjoy a McDonald’s Double Quarter Pounder or Wendy’s Baconator from time to time!  However, I get downright upset when I see fast food restaurants in historic buildings.  In my mind, the placement of McDonalds restaurants in centuries-old marvels of architecture is to violate the sanctity of these historic sites, which have stood the test of time, and impose on them something from our modern era.  This blatant blend of the historic and the modern is an outright violation of this ancient architecture.

Let fast food restaurants be placed in modern-style buildings, and I wish them all the success in the world!  I have no bone to pick with them.  But please, let the historical buildings of our world remain historic, preserved in all their glory as relics of a by-gone era.  To convert them into nothing more than a peddler of fast food, an iconic symbol of the modern age, is a serious degradation.

  McDonalds – Budapest, Hungary

  McDonalds near London, England

  Pizza Hut – Kensington High Street, London, England

SOURCES FOR IMAGES:

– http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=mcdonalds+in+old+buildings&um=1&safe=active&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1342&bih=555&tbm=isch&tbnid=WP6Oa61i1j-syM:&imgrefurl=http://andrewandnikkioverseas.blogspot.com/2013/06/more-budapest-buildings.html&docid=YdUo9vHJtu0PBM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J2sB3v8tMBU/UbSZVFS17WI/AAAAAAAADLk/gY3mEd2_vJo/s1600/P1160085.JPG&w=1200&h=1600&ei=KJptUti7CqXxigKko4GgBQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:71,s:0,i:298&iact=rc&page=5&tbnh=189&tbnw=133&start=64&ndsp=17&tx=83&ty=113

– http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=mcdonalds+in+london&um=1&safe=active&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1342&bih=555&tbm=isch&tbnid=TLBfOZsB1yRerM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/waviolette/4975509970/&docid=AH55NFV2npCzrM&imgurl=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4125/4975509970_41c674446e_o.jpg&w=1080&h=840&ei=0JptUvDlNInMiQK7qoHICg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:49,s:0,i:232&iact=rc&page=4&tbnh=179&tbnw=230&start=40&ndsp=15&tx=153&ty=107

– http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=pizza+hut+in+london&um=1&safe=active&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1342&bih=555&tbm=isch&tbnid=IkEFaOc3zr0PoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/688239&docid=FA4yJsnY-iIU0M&imgurl=http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/68/82/688239_44272930.jpg&w=479&h=640&ei=rJptUpSGGI_viQLsmIGYAw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:13,s:0,i:116&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=180&tbnw=149&start=0&ndsp=16&tx=52&ty=119

If you’ve ever wanted to “not to live under or in the ground, but with it”, then here’s the neighbourhood for you: architect Peter Vetsch’s ‘Earth House’ development located in Switzerland.  After looking through a few photos of the developments, one could argue that the ‘Earth House’ development is a true Garden City… in the literal sense.

Clearly, the idea of living in harmony with nature (or a tamed version of it) has been of central importance to several urban planners throughout the years. Thus the ‘Earth House’ is especially interesting when compared to urban planning schemes and utopian fantasies of the past century. Unsurprisingly, the fixation on natural light, green space, ventilation, space for recreation, and affordability remain central concerns for architects and urban planners. It is with these factors, coupled with the modern day preoccupation of environmental consciousness and ecological concerns, that Vetsch has created a new sustainable settlement. This new development consists of single-family homes covered by a blanket of earth and grass and surrounding an artificial lake in Dietikon Switzerland.

                   The ‘Earth House’

Vetsch focuses on promoting his unique style of architecture as environmentally friendly and financially savvy, two major concerns today. In recent years there has been an especially decisive shift towards environmental sustainability, and the ‘Earth House’ is the epitome of this movement. The ‘Earth House’ is surrounded by ground, which acts as insulation to keep the heating costs low while still protecting dwellers from adverse weather conditions. Vetsch designs these unique developments to preserve the natural landscape and he moulds each house according to the environment. This allows for organic arches to characterize the interior of the home; creating an environment highly effective for insulation that can result in energy savings up to 50%! Moreover, this unique structure also allows for a plethora of natural light in several rooms.

The ground enveloping the home also acts as a cocoon to protect it from rain, wind, and abrasion. According to Vetsch, these homes are also very well protected from earthquakes, fire hazards, and severe windstorms due to the fact that they’re built into, opposed to on top, of the ground. This may provide additional reassurance to some as we navigate the unpredictable terrain of climate change. Finally, the ‘Earth House’ also provides ample room for green space as the ‘roof’ of the home can be used as a gardening space or a terrace.

I personally think the idea is fascinating, environmentally conscious, and whimsical. I love the idea of having an environmentally friendly home focused on renewable energy as an option in a society that’s growing at an unprecedented rate. Having said that, I can see how it wouldn’t appeal to everybody considering that it’s clearly not conducive to city living. What are your thoughts on this style of development?

In yesterday’s discourse, we only briefly discussed the financial aspects of Le Corbusier’s model city and what his expectations seemed to be for the socioeconomic affect these plans would have. Though it would be encouraging to believe that poverty, crime, and the squalor that ensues from them would dissipate with a change in physical environment–there are too many examples to dispute this claim. Further, just because your new home is nice upon your arrival, does not mean that it will remain that way and stay well maintained. Le Corbusier in “The City of To-morrow and its Planning” seems to infer that this model city would provide a stable and clean living condition for the entire population. However, the realities of a capitalist society (especially unregulated capitalism) would never allow for this sustainable and egalitarian-type environment.

As we see is the case with the development of cities like Paris and London during the 19th century, the only way that the standard of living is raised is through government regulation and intervention. Even though many would argue that business leaders have it in their best interest to have a healthy and prosperous work force, unfortunately this is simply not the case in the grand scheme. Therefore, we see time and time again, poverty being in direct correlation with the free market. With this in mind, even if it were possible to create a partnership between government and business to build such a city as Le Corbusier’s it would be even more unbelievable to permit the idea that changes in buildings and roads would have any affect on whether someone would have money or not. Existing still would be a system based on competition, and in competitions there are winners and losers.

Consider this: If you have a home with a tenant in a house who earns $100,000 a year and working less then take that same exact house and have a tenant who is working longer hours and earning $30,000 a year. You likely will see an incredible difference in upkeep, quality of life, security, and overall potential. Of course, there are indeed exceptions to this, but that is exactly the point. Le Corbusier does not consider the human elements involved with a capitalist society and what implications that has on every social class. It’s possible in a completely fascist or completely self sustaining communist state that you might be able to achieve his ideals, but seeing as how there is no perfect government, ruler, or society this status will remain. It is my belief that cities are a physical embodiment or reflection of our state of existence. So as long as things like individualism and greed are the priorities of the masses, our cities and standards of living for those in poverty will be a direct reflection of our priorities as a society.

I respect the economic philosophy behind Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Concept. I also respect his sincere efforts to raise quality of life for the modern city’s struggling working class. However his Garden City concept ignores the true nature of a free market society. Howard stresses the importance of an organized and uniform society. However capitalism and uniformity simply do not work well together. In a society dominated by capitalism, the market above all else dictates the organization and evolution of a city. Howard’s Garden Cities inevitably fall victim to the market just as 19th century London did. The rampant squalor that accompanied life for the working class in 19th century London was largely due to the side effects of capitalism. Basically the onset of industrialization instigated rapid migration of rural people into the city seeking the promise of high wages. This migration led to extreme overcrowding and deterioration of modern London.

When Howard went to create the first Garden City, named Letchworth, he failed to gather investors from working class organizations and instead had to rely on wealthy investors that naturally demanded certain concessions. Howard had to eliminate his cooperative ownership scheme, which essentially made Letchworth a failure in regards to the Garden City economic philosophy. Without the cooperative ownership scheme Letchworth basically became a novel suburb for the affluent as real estate prices predictably soared, making it impossible for the blue collar working class to afford rent let alone ownership in this quasi-Garden City.

The aforementioned issues are why I believe Howard’s Garden City concept will never work. Finding significant capital from non-self-serving investors is a fool’s errand. Therefore Garden Cities may continue to be built aesthetically consistent with Howard’s scheme but they will never mirror his economic philosophies. For a true Garden City to manifest, it must include Howard’s rate rent system, and stabilization of rent. Otherwise the blue collar worker will never have the means necessary to live in a Garden City and that was Howard’s primary goal.

Modern Utopian plans that resemble Ebenezer Howard’s original Garden City continue to exist today. Tranquille on the Lake is located just outside of Kamloops and is currently in the planning process of creating an urban farm or “agri-community” as the owner, BC Wilderness Tours prefers to call the concept. The village will be focused on farming as its main economic vehicle and create a community of people who support the ideologies of urban farming and education. The policies of the plan indicate that the village is “a model agri-community development that promotes and provides a precedent for the integration of urban farming and residential development” (Tranquille Limited Partnership 7). Interestingly, this sounds similar to Howard’s town-country as both plans highlight fusing the joys of nature with the collective living of people through the creation of a town in a country setting.

Meadowview Hospital was intially built for the Tuberculosis patients in 1908.

Tranquille was purchased by BC Wilderness Tours in 2000 for 1.5 million dollars. There are thirty-five deserted buildings on the land from previous government-owned incentives. This site has a fascinating history as the buildings were first constructed in 1908 as a tuberculosis sanatorium. The area was then turned into a mental hospital in 1958 and closed in 1984 when institutionalization of mental patients was banned (Young 1).  BC Wilderness Tours had many legal battles with the City of Kamloops to obtain the land and finally won in BC Supreme Court.

Tranquille on the Lake Ad: Looking Significantly fresh and new in website marketing scheme

Interestingly, in the plans for Tranquille on the Lake, there is no mention of the history behind the land perhaps because the owners fear that this would discourage people from buying into the fresh and new “agri-community” concept. The only mention of the historical preservation aspects in the plan mentions that “The TOL Heritage program will include cemetery protection, adaptive restoration of farm infrastructure, buildings, and fields, adaptive restoration of selected buildings, preservation of selected outdoor public spaces” (Tranquille Limited Partnership 7). The lack of detail and attention focused on the history of the land reflects the “tabula rasa” effect of many Utopian plans. BC Wilderness Tours, similar to Howard wants to start completely new in order to build a reformed community from scratch.

Aerial view of the Tranquille property and the buildings that exist there today.

Tranquille on the Lake is a privately owned building project and this is similar to the construction of the Garden City, Letchworth. There are also specific building protocols that emphasize Utopian ideologies at play in this “agri-community”. The plan highlights that the agricultural village desires to “connect people to the land” (38). The citizens of Tranquille will also be provided with opportunities to take part in “local food cooking classes, compost donations and harvest celebrations” (38). Lastly, recreational spaces such as a “place of worship should be encouraged to occupy an animate adjacent outdoor space” (38). There are several ideologies immersed into the building plans that exemplify a high level of control of the physical space in order to push certain beliefs about the cultural expectations of the community itself. Originally, Howard used the Garden City as a plan to use physical markers to create a certain kind of social community and this concept is repeated in Tranquille on the Lake. It remains to be seen how successful this “agri-community” will be as BC Wilderness Tours are engaged in policy debates with Kamloops currently. It is hoped that the fascinating historical markers on this land will be salvaged when the construction begins for this Utopian dream, or what could turn out to be a nightmare.

Really amazing source of photos of the haunting buildings (wasn’t able to use them because of copyright issues): http://www.pbase.com/readschaad/tranquille

Sources:

Tranquille Limited Partnership. Tranquille on the Lake Neighbourhood Plan. Kamloops: Lindros Property Development Inc., 2012.

Young, Michele. “Appeal Court awards former TB sanatorium lands to tour company: Tranquille property.” Trail Times [Trail, B.C] 16 May 2000:2.

While reading Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities of To-morrow, I was interested to learn that Howard’s utopia inspired the establishment of the town of Letchworth in the Hertfordshire County of England. More importantly, I was interested to learn how closely the town of Letchworth follows the outline for the Garden City set forth in Howard’s 1898 publication. It is my opinion that while Letchworth may be a physical representation of Howard’s Garden City, it fails to meet several of the fundamental characteristics laid out by Howard, and can thus not be considered a successful example of the implementation of the Garden City as it was intended.

When looking at the original plans for the town dating from 1904, the first thing I noticed was the striking similarities of Letchworth’s layout to the plans proposed by Howard, thus Letchworth is a physical representation of Howard’s Garden City. Upon consulting the town website and the Letchworth Heritage Foundation, I learnt that the town was designed to incorporate the best aspects of town and countryside, an idea central to the success of the Garden City.

Plan Of Letchworth Circa 1904

Howard’s utopia was designed with 6 boulevards, separating the city into six equal parts. These streets were then to be intercepted by the “Grand Avenue” which acts like a park with schools, playgrounds, and churches. The outer ring of the Garden City was to be filled with factories, warehouses, and markets. Similarly, Letchworth was designed to include what appear to be 12 major streets heading from the centre of the town towards the periphery. Three concentric streets then intercept these main streets. The central square of Letchworth is composed of municipal buildings that are surrounded by the post office, public hall, and museum. As one heads out of the town, a total of 14 schools can be found surrounded by green space.

Ebenezer Howard’s Utopian Garden City

Letchworth was planned by Berry Parker and Raymond Unwin in 1903 and was intended to be a replication of the Garden City model of urban planning, however despite it’s appearance, fails to meet several key characteristics. Firstly, Letchworth was established in the middle of a 5,500-acre estate and boasts a total population of 33,249 people as of 2011. While this is extremely similar to Howard’s Garden City, it is fundamentally different in one way: in Howard’s utopian Garden City, excess population was sent out to establish a new satellite “Social City” rather than adding to the population.  Secondly, it is doubtful that the town of Letchworth continues to, or ever did, adhere to the strict financial guidelines and municipal administration established by Howard. These include the full use of the Rate-Rent system and Central Council.  

Personally, I’m rather surprised as to how closely Letchworth was created to mirror Howard’s vision and how closely the town continues to resemble this structure. Initially, I thought it was an exact replica, however after our class discussion on September 23^rd it became clear that this city is not in reality a true representation of Howard’s utopia.

“Fritz Lang’s vision of Metropolis”

Upon reflecting on Fritz Lang’s 1927 film “Metropolis” a couple of major themes resonated more than all others. The first being the dystopia vision of the future and the second: a sense of hope that circumstances can change. The characters in this film all play a role in conveying those themes. Joh Fredersen, the man at the helm of this Metropolis is an embodiment of the Bourgeoisie and his son Freder, is characterized as the mediator between him and the underground working class. Maria is the agent of change, whether it be change for the good, or when she is a robot, change for the worse. Though there are many things to dissect in this film, the most interesting element was this: the political change that this film forecasts.

When I think about the time frame for which this film was released in Germany I can’t help but think of the soon to come radicalism that overtook the nation through Nazi rule and the major focus that movement had on social change and hope for a better condition for the working class. Not unlike other nations, Germany’s work force in the early 20th century was dissatisfied to say the least with the working conditions and the living conditions that had grown out of control during the industrial transformation of Europe and with the major losses that had been sustained during WWI. This film was indeed meant for the masses, and very clearly was conveying not only a message of enlightenment but of radical social change. The German people of course, found refuge in a radical movement justified falsely in the name of these very notions. In fact, Joseph Goebbels was very impressed with the film along with other Nazi party members due to its social justice message.

Joseph Goebbels

This film in many ways gives a picture of what is to come politically during the 20th century in Europe and in the United States. Instead of a political Bourgeoisie in command of the government, a strong worker’s union movement would take place during this time. Even here in Canada, it is at this point in history, after WWI that we begin to see radical change take place politically in the form of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In the United States, this political transformation is through the Democratic Party and the New Deal efforts by the Roosevelt Administration.

The reason for pointing out this political shift is that because of this political shift in the early 20th century, we begin to see a change in how cities are planned and how poverty is dealt with. Cities, as we begin to see in the 1800’s are now more than ever, focused on addressing mass poverty and improving the circumstances of the proletariat. Of course, urban planning will follow suit around Europe as different governments take very different approaches to coping with widespread poverty.

It was very interesting to read about the way that cities in Eastern Europe were built post-World War II. The Cold War was a major point of importance as it allowed the social, political and economic differences between the East and the West to come to the forefront. It was during this time that Eastern Europe truly solidified its place as the Communist hemisphere, thus the continued problems from the Industrial Revolution such as overcrowding and the shift to urbanity were attempted to be rectified through the Communist ideals of Utopia, evident in city planning and housing.

In the article “The Gates of Belgrade,” Hirt and Petrovia state that city planning and housing was in Belgrade was truly meant to be a reflection of Communism which was also how Miliutin believed the Socialist city should be built. Housing was constructed in large superblocks of apartments which were used to act as a metaphor of collectivization, equality and uniformity. Although the West also built these huge apartments their major goals were only to battle housing shortages, cost reduction and affordable housing, whereas in Eastern European nations it was also a form of political and utopian realization. It was interesting to learn of the incredible changes that occurred in the post-communist transition of Belgrade, especially in terms of housing. The 1992 Law of Housing truly solidified the changes from an imagined utopia to the reality by leading to a mass privatization of housing, which allowed residents of these superblock apartments to buy them at a very low price and also encouraged the trend towards private, single dwelling homes.