Another city I have visited in the past couple years was Havana. This was quite an interesting city to me, because of the contrast between the tourist areas and where the general population lived. It really was beautiful though, as it was first settled by the Spanish, the architecture there was just awesome. The main area I visited was called Centro Havana, which is the main shopping district. There were lots of really cool markets there and it was an experience bartering with the merchants.

The city was very influenced by the baroque era, which is one reason why the city is so cool. The Havana Cathedral is an example of this and was a sweet building to  visit and walk around in. There were many modern buildings too, and though I didn’t go in it, one of them is called the Focsa. It has 400 apartments, a supermarket, garages, a restaurant and even a school all contained within. It is massive, and seems like a weird idea, but an intriguing one.

Here is a picture I took of Havana’s Capitol building.

Just thought I would share a bit of this city with you guys. If you ever want to go on a vacation and haven’t been, go to Cuba!

In Cities of Tomorrow Peter Hall writes of how after the late 1960s, cities were viewed as open, rather than closed, systems. What he means is that cities are complex, organic machines with multiple functions and motives for functioning. Rather than the observational definition of Max Weber, where the city is the product of a market, or the prescriptive definition of Miliutin, where the city surrounds the methods of production, planners realized that there were a myriad of factors that led to the city’s creation, shape and continued existence.

My paper is on the Great Fire of London, 1666, and the subsequent impact it had on the city’s growth. Possibly the most interesting theory I have come across is the most basic. Stephen J. Pyne writes about mankind’s relation to fire as contradictory. The fear of fire is a relatively new phenomenon, according to Pyne. Throughout human history fire has been embraced as a tool, rather than actively fought. Fires meant regeneration in early agriculture, and even earlier fire meant safety from predators. Humans worked with fire in their hands, setting blazes with torches to create new grazing lands. Even early homes were built around the cooking fire, and fire’s legacy today leaves us with the hearth, even if it is only superficial, as the heart of the contemporary home. As building became made of wood and flammable materials, instead of clay and mud bricks, the danger posed by fire increased.

The point is that at some point fire changed from being a necessary and life-bringing tool, to being a dangerous hazard. Lighting a fire in a city, unless done under strict guidelines, is now a criminal act. Firefighters are paid, and are on constant stand-by, to immediately put out any flames that spring up and threaten the sanctity of the legible and non-flammable city. Firefighting technology is a lucrative business, and it is recommended that all homes carry a fire extinguisher. This is merely one example of the city being an open and complex system that is constant change. What other examples can we think of that suggest the city is an evolving and living entity unto itself, one in which the most steadfast of tools can quickly become the enemy?

We have learned in class how pervasive the theories of Le Corbusier were, and how initially celebrated was his Athen’s Charter. Our syllabus was focused on the European city, however, and not necessarily the evolution of the city in all corners of the world. In South America, for instance, Le Corbusier’s ideas were just as celebrated, and Brazil owes its capital city to the theories of France’s most infamous twentieth century architect. Brasilia is Brazil’s  contemporary capital, but it was not always so. Before 1956 Rio de Janeiro was the capital of Brazil, and Brasilia was designed and created specifically to take its place. Brasilia was the result of a competition of over 5000 designers, of which Lúcio Costa was the winner. His plans were heavily influenced by Le Corbusier’s modern architecture, and he was given free rein to implement his vision on completely green site. Brasilia was constructed in forty-one months.

What is so interesting about Brasilia is the opportunity it provides to see Corbusier’s designs without the challenges that an existing city produces. There were no existing buildings to demolish, nor any existing markets or city centers to cater towards. Brasilia was built from scratch, and therefore it allows us to view Corbusier’s ideas on their own, without the doubts that attempting to create a new utopia within an existing urban sprawl necessarily create. The results are not encouraging. Brasilia has been criticized for the same reasons it has been acclaimed. The utopian strangeness of Corbusier’s solitary towers lends an air of eerie desolation to the landscape, and the similar stylistic choices create a feeling of monotonous drudgery throughout the city.

For me, what is more interesting is the connection to Darren’s post about Albert Speer’s theory of Ruin Value. Brasilia has been declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nations, and as such is deemed by the international community to hold a special cultural value. It is implicit within this designation that Brasilia’s original architecture and design should be protected, and will be a useful example of twentieth century planning for future generations. Although Lúcio Costa might not have had thoughts of Brasilia’s ruin value while designing the iconic city, the international community has certainly proclaimed it a site worthy of protection after its inception. Its ruin value can be inferred from this proclamation, and it is a rare example of a modern city that is thought of more for its value as an historical archetype than as a working model.

In my last post, I shared why I liked Amsterdam because of its culture, which involved the aspect of biking. That is also the topic I am doing my essay on and have found some cool reasons on why biking in Amsterdam has been so effective.

One of these reasons is the GWL Terrein. This residential area of Amsterdam is a car-free zone, which in turn creates a safe environment for children’s play and for people to just generally interact. There are no streets into the area, as they are not needed because of the no-car policy. They also have a very unique way of keeping traffic out, there are signs at various entrance points, but the unique part is that the development is raised from street  level so that cars do not have access to the inner area. (Other than a few access ramps for emergencies) People who live in this area also really seem to love it, as 62% of the people who live there have been there for over 8 years (2010 stats). This just shows that once you live there, apparently you don’t want to leave.

There are many other cool things about this neighborhood but I feel as if this post would be way to long. I hope this is as interesting to everyone else as it was to me. I suggest you all look up this area if you have time, as it is very intriguing.

I have chose to write my final paper on the influence the values of the scientific revolution, as propagated throughout the enlightenment, catalyzed major change in the realm of urban planning. To this end the ideas and case studies i’ve chosen have all been ones that directly deal with science, and it’s pervasive influence over the development of both 18th,19th, and 20th century conceptualizations of urban environments. One such theory i came across that i found both extremely important as it is a theory only 50 years old, is that of New Environmentalism.

New Environmentalism is significant, especially in terms of Sciences influence over its development, because it was a theory, that in no way can be misconstrued as not being completely developed on the basis of scientific ideology and methodology. Thus, New Environmentalism, a radical theory of urban planning that developed in the 1960’s argued that science held the solution to the social and economic problems that had pervaded 20th century, in this context, specifically American urban environments. Further, its significant as Bradbury points out that such a theory highlights the hegemonic role of both scientists and scientific pragmatism that had penetrated so deeply 20th century society.

This theory held that study of biology and psychology had yielded positive results regarding the casual influence of physical environments over social phenomena. Therefore, its goals were to determine a science of behaviour and act using these ideals to solve social problems through objective scientifically designed design formula. In essence, the idea was that changing the physical environments of urban inhabitants, by using ideas founded on scientific principles would solve the social ills of modern society. They even used studies involving mice and other lab animals to prove that in reality such a theory, founded on biological principles would yield positive results in urban environments. Things that were especially important in this American context were things like industrial alienation, Ghettoization, and racism, and it was argued, that these ideas, along with a comprehensive research and development program spearheaded by the US government and once again founded on scientific principles, would solve the major issues facing American society.

I do though think, that doing tests in labs, and arguing over scientific theory, ignores in many way the basic unit that should be studied, the human being itself. Just because a  lab animal reacts in such a manner, does not mean the brain of a human will do the same. It just seems in some ways, rather foolish to argue that simply science and science alone with solve the problems of our Urban Environments. Yes Psychology, and Biology are valuable tools in understanding social phenomena, but there are also non scientific disciplines and elements that must be taken into account. How can science really lead to fostering a sense of community, and thus urban harmony? and it what ways does science really give us accurate knowledge. Once again this is a theory, a construct, and one that has since been disproven, thus what validity to scientific theories hold once they no longer are purported to be accurate? Also such a theory was focused on design formula alone, once again ignoring many of the other features that contribute to creating harmonious urban environments.

So i ask you. What role does and should science hold within the Urban Planning profession? Can well articulated and studied theories solve the social problems of society, or are scientists wasting there time? What about New Environmentalism, do you believe that such an idea is plausible, how much effect does urban design formula alone hold over there populations? Is science the answer, and if not, what is?  WHAT DO YOU THINK?

A couple years ago I went and traveled around Europe for a month with my family. For the first three weeks we were stationed out of Holland so I got to see many of their cities. One of my favorite cities to visit was Amsterdam. It was just a really cool place, and not because of the red light district or its marijuana laws, but because of the way it looked, and the overall character of the city.

A  major difference from our cities that I noticed in Holland and especially Amsterdam was the amount of bicycles that were around. There were entire parking garages dedicated to bikes, which to me was crazy. Some random stats I came across while looking up Amsterdam is that there are over a million bikes in a city of 700,000 people. This is double the amount of cars and because of all the bikes there are over 15,000 km of bike lanes in Amsterdam. We had a rental car for traveling around, but you could immediately tell that if we were staying solely in the city and not traveling why this would be a bad idea. Many of the roads were very small and could barely fit two cars going in opposite directions, especially if there were cars parked on the side. I was very glad I was not the driver, as I could tell it would take more than a little time to get used to this. We ended up walking many places in the city because it was more of an inconvenience to move the car around.

This is just one of the reasons why I really liked Amsterdam. It was a completely different atmosphere, and not having the crazy amount of cars around that we do was nice as well. One day I want to go back, and instead of renting a car, rent a bike and experience traveling the city the way the majority of its citizens do.

Urban planning, where it has succeeded or failed. Two years ago I had the opportunity to fly to Malta and visit every part of the island (its small enough to travel it in 3-5 hours). What intrigued me were two cities: Valleta and Mdina. I was originally going to write my essay on how tourism is what allows these cities to flourish but that traffic is a variable that affected their economies, but there are not enough resources in Canada.

What strikes me is that these two cities thrive on tourism, but one has been modernized and the other appears to be locked in time. When you visit Valetta there is ample parking outside, an intrinsic bus loop, and tourists everywhere. It was built in the 16th century during the rule of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (these guys built fascinating watch towers all around the island) and is on the ocean with two natural harbors. When doing some research I discovered that the city’s principal designer’s plan deviated from medieval Maltese architecture, which exhibited irregular winding streets and alleys. Instead, he designed the new city on a rectangular grid, and without any collacchio (an area restricted for important buildings). After the Knights’ departure and the brief French occupation, building projects in Valletta resumed under British rule that included widening gates, demolishing and rebuilding structures, widening newer houses over the years, and installing civic projects. The city is always busy and alive, except in the evenings where everyone has gone home and the buses have stopped running (but Malta in general shuts down after 6pm)

In Mdina, the “silent city,” it appears to be a ghost town and everything has been frozen in time like a museum. It’s eerie because nobody travels in this city and you feel almost trapped because of all the high walls. There is a bus loop but it’s far into the island and traffic was never addressed, mostly because there were no automobiles when this city was built. There are no ports nearby, but rather the city exists on higher elevation and can view the coastline as it was originally built as a defensive Roman castle and dates its origins back to 700 BC. It has had sections rebuilt or redesigned, as the Knights of St John altered the cathedral and focused on restoration projects, but the main focus was preservation instead of modifying it to become modernistic. If you visit Mdina bare in mind people are residing within the walls, so be careful you don’t end up in their living room like many mistaken tourists have made (not myself). While Valetta is constantly upgrading, Mdina is being preserved.

Essentially I just find it intriguing how these two cities are still functioning in this modern age. They both rely on tourism and contain residents dwelling within these archaic and Baroque stylized buildings but their locations are strategic to their flow of traffic. Although Mdina used to be Malta’s capital, it is clear why they transferred it to Valetta because of the strategic location. No longer is defense a concern like Max Weber described, but instead the city focuses on furthering its economic interests.

We began the class by going over the criticism that we as students provided to Brigitte regarding the course. In general, many had positive feedback, and thought the course material was intriguing. Even so, there were a few points of contention. Some argued there was a lack of expectations. To this end, we went over both what we as students see as the goal of the course, as well as what Brigitte sees as the main goals for our learning. Students highlighted that we were learning about the factual history of urban planning, its societal impacts, and the role of ideology in perpetuating all of this. Brigitte added that the crucial thing is to denaturalize the study of urban planning, therefore coming to the realization that urban planning is a product of a certain time and place, and that this context is what leads urban planners to re imagine their cities. Moving on we discussed Magnitogorsk. We especially highlighted the importance of the fact that the Soviet Union brought in a German Architect and American Engineers to build their model city. Continuing, we began to talk about Milutin and his plan for a linear city. Thus, hypothetically his city could keep expanding infinitely. It is a city based on an assembly line and therefore, production organizes the layout of the city, and rational principles are introduced to govern the development. Also in this case, one sees the separation of agricultural, industrial, and residential areas, as well as the collectivization of different functions. We then moved on to the discussion questions. May was chosen because Germany was an industrial leader, and a technical expert. Additionally, Magnitogorsk was supposed to be rational, industrious, beautiful place, a model city Egalitarian in nature, with equal standards of living. It was supposed that the Idea of the neighborhood unit would also apply, with each superblock having its own services. Ernst May eventually gets kicked out of the Soviet Union. His building work wasn’t good and he was blamed for the problems of topography. Essentially he became the scapegoat for why it wasen’t going to plan. Also one begins to see modernism depicted as a bourgeois style, and hence unsuitable for the model Soviet city. We then moved on to the problems and shortcomings in the cities construction. The ones we highlighted were that there were too many workers and not enough housing, construction efforts were slow, and workers are not provided with suitable materials. Also it fails in its egalitarian efforts, we see new areas like Amerikanka and Berezka, settlements built for American specialists. Although those who end up living there are the bureaucrats and the elites. It also becomes a place where you have to walk enormous distances, there is no access to clean water and this results in a typhus epidemic. There is inadequate heating, And there is really poor transportation and very limited public transportation. Therefore Magnitogorsk was a failure.

The city has come to represent an achievement of man and the progress which can be made in the name of progress and potentially more appropriately, profit. This mentality has the ability to turn the city and the rationalism which surrounds it into a monstrosity that ignores the humanity of the people. Fritz Lang and his film Metropolis showcase the ability for the city to become a truly monolithic entity which dwarfs those who live it. The question I wish to pursue is one of the cities character.

While I have limited time to discuss the role of the city as a character, it is clear that the role that Metropolis plays is larger than it may seem upon first glance. Upon second glance the best way I have found to view the city is as a much more primordial organism that is concerned with only supporting and expanding itself. To think like this requires one to look at the people within the city as the organisms supporting the mechanisms which the city needs to survive, and much of the film supports this.

Primary amongst this point is the argument which is brought up as one of the few key cleavages of the film. This is the relationship between the mind and the hands, two integral components which keep the city expanding and operating. The issue with this initial relationship is its self-destructive nature as the hands – or workers – are being worked literally to death in the name of the city, which in itself is made to seem archaic and pagan. It becomes a focus of a film to right the abuses of the mind against the hands, and the means of doing this is the mediator.

With the emergence of this mediator, there comes the risk of the entire city being brought down by Hel and her creator. This is reminiscent of a form of virus attempting to topple the otherwise healthy body. This culminates in the rejection of the threat and the uniting of the body’s elements. This is instrumental of the city’s desire to grow. While it can be difficult to divorce the humanity from the situation and the difficulties which may arise from this new union it is inescapable how the plays an important factor when viewing the city as a character in itself.

In summary the organism that is the city is important to consider as an entity which is self-interested in maintaining itself. While it requires magical realism, it is important to understand these unique portions of Lang’s film such as this theme.