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.