As mentioned in one of the previous posts, Canberra has been deemed
"soulless" due to it being a planned capital city. Is Canberra an exception, or are planned capitals in general a failure?
It is important to note that the most impressive cities have been formed organically - cities can technically be looked at as living organisms that grow, re-create and die... cities are formed based on organic decisions made by the people at that time - they are in those places for a reason... how can planned cities really work?
Planned cities are made with the best intentions, but they are created as an idealistic outcome - "the road to a bad city is paved with good intentions" - but do these outcomes ever create a liveable and lively city?
BRASILIA, BRAZIL
Brasilia, from above.
Created as a more centrally located capital city for Brazil, Brasilia grew rapidly - much more than anyone had anticipated. Negatives?
Designed more for car travel, the design of Brasilia doesn't adequately facilitate pedestrians - creating and expensive and confusing city to visit or live within.
"It's funny, people are craving to get the hell out of Brasilia on the Thursday and go back on the Tuesday, working a short week, because it doesn't provide that sort of intensity and mixture of life that you get in downtown New York or the back streets of Naples." - Professor Ricky Burdett, head of the Cities Program at the London School of Economics.
Positives?
Due to all contraction being completed recently, Brasilia boasts impressive modern architecture (which has had it listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site)
Outcome?
Although Brasilia boasts impressive architecture, the outcome is a city that comes across as too impersonal for those who live there and visit - the city provides a place for work, and some nice buildings to look at - but no real character.
WASHINGTON D.C. , AMERICA
Washington D.C. Mall Plan
Washington D.C. is similar to Canberra in that it was designed around the Garden City / City Beautiful ideals. The "original" planned city, Washington was designed by a french Architect in 1791, which only came into realisation by the start of the 20th century.
Positives?
A variety of cultural and social activities, as well as a real connection to the parliamentary system in America. Good public transport system in the inner city.
Negatives?
An extremely expensive place to live, with horrible traffic conditions if you want to drive. Cars needed to travel outside of the city.
Outcome?
The city is successful as a "monument of the country", but general problems have occurred - but these can happen within any city. Washington D.C. is said to have a soul!
CONCLUSION ON PLANNED CAPITALS?
I believe that cities should "grow organically", however planned cities can sometimes work. Canberra is probably struggling at the moment due to the nature of it's main purpose, and the location - there is no real room for expansion or rejuvenation...
I think planning cities can be done well; there should be a mix of planned and unplanned areas - there should be a general overview that will create a city that works, however there should be room for the city to create itself. This is what gives a city a soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment