Dreams versus Practicality: The Legacy of Modernism on the Planning of London - Term Paper Example

Dreams versus Practicality: The Legacy of Modernism on the Planning of London It is not the same thing to plan a city for a new location as it is to organise on-going planning for a city with a long history, one that has occupied the land for centuries. This difference has always been one of the intricate considerations when architects and civil engineers have faced the quandary of planning London. Here, an attempt will be made to assess the legacy of one particular stage or discipline: Modernism, and how its post WWII fingerprint was left on the master plan of this great and some say eternal city. An exhibition of Le Corbusier’s works, drawings, artworks and concepts held at the Barbican in 2009 brought back, to many of those interested in the changing face of London, the memories of this famous architect’s ideas and the imprint of Modernism whose effect is still evident in some places in London. Writing in the London Evening Standard, this is what an architectural style commentator had to say: ‘The Swiss-French architect saw, correctly, that modern times created the opportunity for new kinds of architecture, and he generated a wealth of ideas and motifs that still supply architects today.’(Moore 2009). An exponent of Modernism, it is true that Le Corbusier has left a legacy of ideas in a number of locations, not least of which being London, one of the foremost capital cities of the world (Boyd Whyte 2003). Before having a look at the influence of Le Corbusier and others like him, such as Ebenezer Howard and Patrick Abercrombie, a brief look at how London has viewed and received planning and development is necessary. Great Britain has always had an attitude towards land that - perhaps greater than any other place - encompassed private ownership (Simmie 1994). Looking at its planning history, as well, one finds a very strong and clearly dominant ideology of private property for a long time preceding World War II (Simmie 1994) The bearers of this ideology - mostly, but not always, embodied in landed gentry - have been in conflict with attempts to over-ride it, mainly during the two planning periods of 1947-68, that is, the years that closely followed after the destruction of the war, when London was heavily bombed, and the 1969-78 period. The second half of the 19th century was when public interest was involved in determining what would happen to the city in terms of demolition, construction, style, size and use. (Simmie 1994). This involvement began with concern over fresh water supply and efficient sewers during the war years, but later widened to include most aspects, especially the advent of the the car, up to about 1968; periods when public interest ideologies and private property interests were incorporated in planning strategies for the city. They were the days when sanitation and pollution were largely viewed on a local scale, and the term ‘environment’ did not have the global significance it has today (Simmie 1994). They were the days when dependence on the motor-car had not burgeoned to the behemoth it is today. A combination of structure plans and local plans made up a development plan system called a Unity plan for London, in place for some time. Development control plays a big part in British planning: this is the power to decide whether or not a particular development can take place on a specific site (Simmie 1997). It also has control over density, intensity and includes decisions over layout and design. This is an important consideration, because it affects not only what activities and industries can be situated in certain zones, but also what the zones look like, and how public perception works in terms of value, space, use and price (Fishman 1982). Areas of natural beauty, heritage sites and buildings, green belts, conservation areas and national parks are all affected by this (Simmie 1994). Sentiments of this nature are the direct result of how London was developed and re-built after the war. When it comes to planning a city around what exists already, but also incorporating concepts for modern living to accommodate the way people live, move, entertain and educate themselves and their children, commute and work, there are some very vital considerations that architects and town planners have always needed to take on (Freestone 2000). When one regards these considerations with a specific city in mind - London - they take on gigantic proportions because not only is its history long and complicated, but the buildings and layouts that go together with that history have been defined very deeply and form part of the public subconscious (Simmie 1997). That is, they have become part and parcel of the perception of what the city of London is. The oldest environmental charity in London, now known as the Town and Country Planning Association, was founded in 1899 by Ebenezer Howard. It was then called the Garden Cities Association. This name is very significant in the history of urban planning in and around the capital city. His early book To-morrow: A peaceful path to Real Reform that was published in 1898 was received well, but it was taken as a Utopian view: a description and fictional plans full of wishful thinking (Lucey 1973). Although it had a very realistic approach, few saw any reality in the possibility of constructing such pretty, rational and symmetrical places. The late 1800s saw more and more of the working classes crowding into inappropriately sized and situated housing, and the cramped conditions started to affect the lives of the middle class families. This brought about a lot of debate about the plight of workers, and the effects that impinged on the wealthier inhabitants of the same city. How this could be solved was a problem tackled by a number of thinkers, but few thought that Howard’s solutions were practical (Lucey 1973). Although the country around London was already proving to be a refuge for those wanting respite from the noise, crowding, smells and general discomfort, there were not many who considered the notion of satellite towns constructed to the plans found in ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’. By the time this book of Ebenezer Howard’s was published it was 1902: Queen Victoria had died and King Edward was on the throne. Advancement and innovation seemed to be discussed everywhere (Freestone 2000). The radial diagrams (Fig 1.) for Garden City by Howard were originally conceived for a town with the working name of ‘Victoria’, in honour of the Queen who had reigned so long. His drawings indicate his notions of perfections: an urban island of habitations and gardens in the centre of practical arrangements of farms, grazing land, colleges, hospitals and convalescence homes (Lucey 1973). This utopian view is a direct result of the confusion and overcrowding that already existed, due to the population explosion of the industrial revolution, and the poverty and lack of comfort in parts of London that Howard and others like him saw as the result of little or no planning. The organic way in which most of the world’s old cities evolved constituted little in the way of foresight (Curtis 1996). Many years later, Le Corbusier had the same inclination as Howard to love the concept of planning by making actual drawn plans. ‘The plan as generator’ is the way that Le Corbusier expressed the concept (Vidler and Eisenman 2008). Howard did not take the idea as far as the French-Swisse architect would do much later. He restricted himself to neat ground plans that most of the time took the shape of a centre, from which radiated the various spaces for services necessary to promote a reasonably comfortable life (Lucey 1973). This rationalistic sense is apparent in all his drawings (Fig 2.). His idealism was perfected by the addition of names for streets, avenues, roads, garden and parks. A modern student, when studying these plans, discovers enormous gaps in the idea, most having to do with transport. Howard had great ideas, but he did not consider the possibility of the car completely taking over modern life, so he still provided space for the grazing of horses. Taking into consideration the number of persons per acre, Howard had in mind, like others before him, the improvement of the health and conditions of working people (Lucey 1973). His ideas were modern for the time, and were the real forerunners and base from which Le Corbusier and Abercrombie spun their own futuristic notions, but what was seen as convenient in Howard’s time had changed by then. It is possible to see Howard’s plans come to fruition in places such as Welwyn, where workers’ houses and gardens were constructed. In part of Hampstead, the indelible finger of Howard is still visible (Fishman 1982). His plans, however, were altered to allow old trees and existing main roads to survive in places where it was feasible, so his grand plan of symmetry was not wholly maintained. In addition, density of persons per acre had to be increased (Lucey 1973). But it had taken shape: the future had started then, and the way was laid for Modernism to make its mark. It paved the way for Le Corbusier, who was ambitious and much more of a visionary. ‘He envisaged a new and unique role for the artist/ architect and the city planner that closely adhered to the capitalist spirit.’ (Kennedy 2009) The continental architect did not simply believe in the ‘uplift’ theory of architecture, a theory that if workers lived in improved housing their circumstances would also improve and poverty would be banished. In addition, he believed that architecture exerted a form of discipline (Kennedy 2009). He was a seminal figure in the Modernist movement (Lindberg 2005) who exerted enormous influence on the International style, and whose style involved megastructuralist principles. ‘The skyscraper in the park’ is not an organic arrangement that evolved naturally, like the old streets of London or any other ancient city in Europe, and even the New World. It was an artificial construct completely under control of its designer. Le Corbusier’s ideas were wholly synthetic, stemming from utopian notions and the belief that organisation and neatness in design produced organisation and neatness in use and behaviour (Le Corbusier 1987). He formulated a theoretical city, the building of which needed to run along a number of principles: the canon of planning. It is worth examining his stipulations: City Layout: Like Howard, he maintained there had to be a central core, composed of a dense combination of spaces and habitations, with the garden concept as a loose and flexible border. And a buffer zone of woods and fields would protect the core. Site: A level location was essential. Corbusier saw his cities as flat spaces that could be surveyed from a single spot. He saw his planned creations as planes of horizontal and vertical spaces with a geometric origin as their core. Traffic: this was a favourite consideration. The French architect conceived tunnels for heavy or articulated vehicles, so that they ran underground and served houses and establishments from below. Streets were reserved for small private vehicles and walking. Stations: there would be one enormous central station for public transport from which everything radiated. This too would be situated underground, with a dome on top, for planes and helicopters. Population: everyone would live in sections according to where they worked and what they did. The garden suburbs would be reserved for those who worked in the industrial zones that skirted the core. ‘Citizens’ would live and work in the commercial centre, and there would be a mixed section for those who worked in the corporate section of the city but lived in the garden belt. Streets: these would serve a number of purposes. The normal use of walking and driving, and connecting one place with another, would be added to by tunnels underneath for utilities such as water, gas, sewage and cables, all accessible from the central strip. Space saving: the problem of housing a large population without large tracts of land meant Corbusier had to build upward. The concept of verticality is the trademark of his model. Huge complexes of apartments would house a dense population. These stipulations made Corbusier stand out amongst designers of his time for their strong formality that had few concessions. One concession was his need for plenty of light, so he would allow no narrow ‘canyons’ of streets bounded by high buildings (Le Corbusier 1987). What he termed ‘setbacks’ were vital to provide essential natural light. Therefore, high buildings were to be set well back from one another. He also saw tall buildings occupied by shops, offices and services on the ground and lower floors, with apartments for dwellings on the upper ones. This concept is not unusual in the post-modernist world. He used a rigid geometric template, with no artistic leeway (Castree et al 2009). There were no creative diversions from the strict symmetry (Fig 3). There is hardly any relief from angular shapes: even the parks are rectangular. From this image (Fig 3) can be seen the highly idealized nature of the meanings of a city to Le Corbusier. He forged his ideas around what can be called a political or civic ‘improvement’, which he strove to supply to large numbers of people living in close quarters, yet enjoying quality of life within a very disciplined environment. His elevations also show a level of regulation indicative of the control he would have liked to exert on the flow of movement within his design, not only of the people living, working and relaxing there, but also of the natural elements such as light, wind and rain (Le Corbusier 1987). In figure 4, the formally assembled buildings, regimented around perfect par-terres, with pavilions and carefully arranged trees, which are dwarfed by the massive edifices, it is possible to see how the master Swiss-French architect reduced the natural elements in favour of his own synthetic implants. This is in complete and direct contrast with the lack of angular regimentation present in the Abercrombie concepts. These were plans developed over 1943-44 by Patrick Abercrombie for the development and improvement of London. The Ministry of Works for the County of London had commissioned architect Patrick Abercrombie to draw his proposal, which had to be germane to the provisions already detailed in the County of London Plan, which had been in existence for twelve months (Simmie 1994). Sir Patrick was professor of Civic Design at the University of Liverpool’s school of architecture, and was a close collaborator with Sir Edwin Luytens, the famous architect connected with the modern plans for Hull (Luytens and Abercrombie 1945). Abercrombie’s excellence in conceptual town planning is commemorated annually, with the prize for town planning that bears his name. But his visionary view of a greener city is what concerns this student the most. Abercrombie was instrumental in preserving the Green Belt, especially parts of Essex, including Romford, during the drawing up of the post-war ‘destruction to construction’ plan that was the reason for such a huge movement of habitations from the centre of London to the fringes (Walpole 2009). ‘The density of population of central London would in the process be reduced to 136 persons per acre – down from the then current high point of 200 persons per acre.’ (Walpole 2009). There is evidence of the Modernist ‘New Town’ planning in places such as Chipping, Berkshire, Margaretting, Steveage and Stapleford which when finished, constituted dormer / feeder towns for the corporate, commercial and industrial workplaces within central London. The recreational and agricultural needs of the people living and working in these places was not met (Foreshaw and Abercrombie 1943) by tearing down natural and organic growth and replacing it with perfect rectangular meadows. Nor were great hubs with radiating hoops of alternating green and concrete constructed in the place of historic settings: Abercrombie was of the opinion that retaining existing greenery, paths for wildlife, and topographical undulations was essential for retaining character while still injecting a Modernist aspect and lighter and brighter conditions for the people ( Foreshaw and Abercrombie 1943; Walpole 2009). During the time that all this design fever was taking place, especially after the end of the second World War, great polemics concerning religion, art, politics, civic duty, heroism, and loyalty to one’s country were being hotly debated in London’s newspapers, parliament, cafes and gentlemen’s clubs. There was a new wave of ideas that (Boyd Whyte 2003) affected not only how the leading designers thought the re-built parts of London should look, but also a fundamental analysis of what London’s character should be: what it should represent, its uses, and its role as a world capital in the light of the outcome of the recent hostilities. This socio-economic and political vision, and its accompanying very differing views from different positions, have been instrumental in moulding perceptions of a practical and philosophical nature (Fishman 1982). The results and the marks of its vigour can be seen in the way the city was planned, and the style of buildings and layouts that were ‘allowed’ to come about (Lindberg, Peter 2005). ‘Planning’s aspirations have always soared above the practicality of their implementation,’ (Freestone 2000). This statement rings so true when examined in the light of Le Corbusier’s vision for a new city, and the French architect’s expectations of the elements that in his opinion would work to eliminate grinding poverty and deprivation. The reality of what took place in the massive council housing projects of the early 1960s do not bear out his theories of discipline and density. Although many exponents were right when they asserted that ‘a significant proportion of humanity on every continent finds itself living in better circumstances at the end of the twentieth century than at its beginning due to town planning’ (Freestone 2005) has a lot of truth in it. However, one must compare it with what was there before, and one must also take into consideration that - with the possible exception of Abercrombie’s ‘moon cities’ - no really radically Corbusierian Radiant cities were ever built in London to his exact ‘stipulations’ as seen above. Examination of the London of today might give the impression his views came to fruition, however the developments seen are the organic result of a number of causes, not the strict implementation of one plan (Vidler and Eisenman 2008). The universal and the local are two completely different - and sometimes conflicting - considerations. It is very difficult to take an overarching theory that deals with ‘everything’ and apply it to a specific location. The location is peopled with (especially in London) a shifting population with needs that differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. The climate is a very big concern, but whether it is as big as culture, or whether landscape is more vital, are debates that are always contended heatedly in planning departments everywhere, not just in Great Britain (Curtis 1996). All the famous designers of the Modernist epoch firmly believed that their societies needed new kinds of cities (Fishman 1982). Each of them not only created large and highly detailed plans, but also accompanied the drawings and elevations with a lot of writing to explain their ethos, their visions and their forecasts of what modern life would bring to the people in London during the foreseeable future (Fishman 1982). Ebenezer Howard’s diagram of what caused certain movements and shifts in wants and needs of any city’s population was valid for Le Corbusier and also for Abercrombie. It might just still be valid for the post-Modernist societies that took over the cities of the world in the 1970s and 80s. The theory drawn up by Ebenezer Howard that distinguishes what draws people to the country or the city seems to suggest that a combination of features from both seem to give a number of benefits. He lists ‘no slums’ and ‘low rents’ as attractions for the kind of satellite city at the fringes of a large urban hub the like of London, where people could enjoy the green open spaces and garden-like qualities while still being within reach of their work in the centre (Howard 2009). This cosmopolitan life is of course accessible in many cities of today’s world in places like Vancouver, Canada; Perth, Australia; Auckland, New Zealand; and Radburn New Jersey in the USA (Hall, Peter 2008) The philosophy of Howard’s first implemented Garden City of Letchworth, just North of London, after the first World War, and its success, soon showed the world that a combination of amenities and access to clean fresh air and vegetation were keys to this achievement (Sowder 2008). Melbourne, Australia is still called the Garden City. What of Le Corbusier’s theories? Adaptations of his Unitè building can be seen in a number of social housing projects the world over, such as the United States, South America and most notably in Eastern Europe. But London - and especially the complex that housed the 2009 commemorative exhibition in honour of Le Corbusier, has a number of marks that show his influence. Interiors of the Modernist period abound: whenever one looks at an open-plan interior, it had to come from a Corbusierian influence. Whenever a tall building housing a number of apartments, with balconies that mark the horizontal planes, is looked at, even if it was designed by other architects, it is his legacy that opened the doors to them to entertain the concepts of using space in that particular way (Castree et al 2009). The Barbican itself, designed and implemented by the team of Chamberlain, Powell and Bon, shows some very recognisable elements that link it to the Swiss-French architect. Figure 8 shows the walkways and terraces, the squared off ponds and the glimpses of vegetation, together with its ziggurat and monumental dimensions, which are, to the practised eye of the careful student, the thumbprint of the master (Hall, Peter 2002). In a sense, the megacity rationale of Le Corbusier is the one that springs to mind when one wanders the streets of London today. Rather than the Garden City dreams and proposals that had their play in the immediate post-war years, the long-term organic development of this important world capital has turned out to affirm some of the key stipulations of Le Corbusier’s grand plan. * Word count: 4020 including citations in parentheses, but not including list of sources or captions. The word count is the equivalent of 14 pages of text, and care has been taken to account for the space taken up by illustrations. Sources Cited Boyd Whyte, Iain (2003) Modernism and the Spirit of the City Routledge Brooker, Peter (2004) Bohemia in London: The Social Scene of Early Modernism Palgrave MacMillan Castree, Noel; Coe, Neil; Ward, Kevin; Samers, Mike (2009) Spaces of Work: Global Capitalism and the Geographies of Labour Sage Publications Curtis, William JR (1996) Modern Architecture Since 1900 Phaidon Fishman, Robert (1982) Urban Utopias in the 20th Century MIT Press Freestone, Robert (2000) Urban Planning in a Changing World: The 20th Century Experience Routledge Forshaw, J H and Abercrombie, P (1943) County of London Plan, Macmillan & Co. Hall, Peter (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century Wiley-Blackwell Howard, Ebenezer (2009) Garden Cities of Tomorrow BiblioLife Kennedy, Rachel (2009) LeCorbusier and the Radiant City: True Urbanity and the Earth Accessed March 3, 2010 Le Corbusier,(1987) “A Contemporary City” from The City of Tomorrow and its Planning Dover   Lutyens, Edwin and Abercrombie, Patrick (1945) A Plan for the City & County of Kingston upon Hull, Brown (London & Hull) Walpole, Andy (2009) Now We Must Rebuild < http://www.haroldhill.org/chapter-one/now- we-must-rebuild-the-greater-london-plan-1944.htm> Accessed March 2, 2010 Lindberg, Peter (2005) Le Corbusier’s The City of Tomorrow and its Planning Accessed March 4, 2010 Lucey, Norman (1973) The Effect of Sir Ebenezer Howard and The Garden City Movement on 20th Century Town Planning Accessed March 3 2010 Moore, Rowan (2009) Le Corbusier: The Art of Architecture in London Evening Standard Accessed March 4, 2010 Simmie, James (1994) Planning London Routledge Sowder, Adam (2008) Garden Cities Accessed March 2, 2010 Vidler, Anthony and Eisenman, Peter (2008) Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism MIT Press Review: Le Corbusier - The Art of Architecture, Barbican, London EC2 (020-7638 8891) Thursday-May 24; The Interior of the Cabanon, RIBA, London W1 (020-7580 5533), March 5 to April 28 Accessed March 4, 2010 Read More