ORIGIN OF CITIES AND IT’S RELEVANCE TO MODERN DAY ARCHITECTURE OLIVER BALDOCK. NOVEMBER 2013. 0609A.
IS THE IDEA OF THE ORIGIN OF CITIES STILL RELEVANT TO MODERN DAY ARCHITECTURE? BY OLIVER BALDOCK
Comparing a city that originated over 6000 years ago to the modern cities that surround most of the developed world today is a daunting prospect. Indeed, the relevance of these comparisons is a topic often questioned. The usefulness of such historical knowledge to the modern society is a subject continuously scrutinised. However, I feel that whilst modern architecture & the modern city struggles to define itself, the tracing back of trade, technology and locations to the originating ideas of earlier populations can help with discovering the root of a city. Such background information can help to define our current communities, and suggest as to what makes them such a powerful tool. The most basic and fundamental reasoning behind the development of the city is as a means and place of survival. Quite understandably, a greater population leads to a greater emphasis of protection, and larger provision of human resources to defend your location and fend off attacking nation. This also works in the alternate scenario of attacking, and the later idea behind imperialism where the needs of a nation or state overruled the right to individual possession. However, man has a much greater desire than to just survive. The benefits of wealth and the ability to enjoy a life free from fear and constant work comes as a result of trade. The most basic social structure sees a simple exchange of food and tools. As demand grows, the more effective producers lead the community and begin to specialise in their trade, seeing a greater provision of surplus food from farmers. The community is able to support more people, and the effective bartering system ensures that all residents need to provide useful resources if they wish to receive a staple diet Trade drives the city, from Mesopotamia to Venice. Slowly over time basic community trading develops into markets which become more permanent, forming shops and residential areas close by. It is trade, and the resulting wealth that remains the major draw of people to a city and develops economies of scale, where a greater provision of resources leads to and encourages a more efficient production process. This wealth, however, depends greatly on
location. Whilst fertile land becomes a major factor and attribution to wealth and the selfsustainability of the land, it is far from the only factor related to location that defines success. However, this is better understood when cities are placed in contrast to village of the same period. Both are often situated near a large body of water with accessibility being key to development, major cities were almost always found downstream on a river, where the wider span and flatter flood plains provided an easier construction process and more effective shipping ports. The location is strategic, situated on an influential route close to resources. Often these resources were forcibly coerced into providing for the city, farmers forced to provide surplus food to those residents unable to produce their own. This idea is simulated under a modern system through the implementation of protectionist measures. Wealth and the ability to reinvest is key to the survival of any trading area, and the architecture that allows a city to do this becomes successful. The ability for local traders to sell their goods and reinvest in a community is vital for attracting further growth. If architecture is able to support the current flow of people and allow for the surplus that this flow attracts by providing adequate infrastructure and public spaces then it shall continue to flourish. A busy city centre quickly develops into an effective attraction, not for people seeking a means of survival, but looking for affluence and worthless souvenirs. The ability of a city to be dual-purpose, providing both for its residents and global markets ensures that the profits and revenue of a city stay within its own boundaries. The provision of temples and entertainment venues, as well as hotels and public trading forums ensures that any city works on a global and local scale. The modern city centre, however, is no longer home to its residents. Ironically, those looking for a higher quality of life tend to relocate in the suburbs of such cities, rather than the centre which was favoured in original centres. Of course, with modern transport links the commute back into the centre makes little difference and the communities supposedly migrate rather than segregate. The movement away from the direct trading of goods to the service centre leads to a change in the use of architecture. The ancient forums and Agora of Rome and Athens that housed markets and business become worthless in comparison to the sleek office block designed to impress foreign clients. Thus, whilst the city is no longer a place that provides direct means of survival to a community, it remains at the centre as a figurehead for a nation. The resources that once provided force and arms to control and protect a city, now provide a governance and modern architecture which encourages and opens up a nation to globalisation, vital for progression any time period.
Nevertheless, the notion of globalisation and the provision of an inviting city is not a new idea. The Acropolis at the centre of Athens is an attraction that drew, and still draws, in millions of people. Both those worshipping religious deities and those simply in awe of its size have arrived over the past three thousand years. The Acropolis itself plays home to the gods and beliefs of the population. Such an idea provides a powerful base on which to provide construction of the city, with the favour of the deities looking down on the town from on the hill. In terms of architectural important, direct significance must be placed on the height and stature of the temples adorning the Acropolis. From those that began settlements in Mesopotamia and Babylon, the key ideological belief has been in the celestial beings rather than the Nomadic earth-bound gods. Such a powerful conviction has led, quite understandably, to the notion that taller building, and those placed higher up in location, are closer to these deities, and thus better regarded. This connection and belief has never faded, with more recent religious structures seeing spires and domes as a means to communicate the strength of a community’s faith. Of course, modern architecture, combined with modern technologies enables a further reaching and more powerful structure. Whilst it may be argue that this is simply man asserting his dominance on the skyline, there is more to be read into the point which soars into the clouds. The monumentality, built up over thousands of years of humans staring at growing and domineering temples, is being transferred to corporate giants seeking to attain such grandeur through providing expensive yet impressive architecture that develops into a vital part of a landscape. Moreover, the historical importance of such iconic buildings should not just be seen through their finished design, but, more interestingly, through their construction process. The city that grew around a temple was not merely a coincidence. There is much evidence to suggest that the largest cities did not grow and develop, but simply appeared, forming and spreading its roots between the two periods of historical records. One explanation for such an illusion references the sudden settling of a large group of nomadic travellers. These travellers, finding fertile land and a convenient location with regards to their geographical knowledge, thus began to develop this area rapidly. This suggests that the more powerful and seemingly modern notion of urban planning and premeditated construction has been used effectively for many millennia. The temple is deliberately exhibited as a centre to the expanding community. The ideological nature of such a building draws a community into the same situation, and although such beliefs are no longer of major concern to a mixed modern society, the appreciation of such structure as a powerful place is still present. Thus, as people interact,
both spiritually and otherwise, forms of trade occur and two sectors collude. Priors and monasteries where often key figures in the marketplace, providing a sense of morality to an often ethically challenged activity. The Acropolis is directly linked to the Athenian Agora, for the Greeks understood that the wealthy should play an important part in improving society. An idea instilled through moral teachings. St Paul’s Cathedral is placed directly on the Thames for the appreciation of passing trade ship before their business is enveloped by London markets. The city plan, residential regulation and development of commercial opportunities naturally occur over time in any cities. An appreciation of the changing population of a city, and a development in the use of public buildings would allow a greater interaction of modern architecture with its residents. Either that or we again look more closely at Garden cities such as Letchworth in the UK, Washington D.C., or Masdar, being built in Dubai. The careful, pre-planned structure of a city can immediately help set up a location as a commercial and thus a social hotspot.
Socialisation remains key to the fast pace of modern cities, yet public architecture is only first observed in Ancient Greece. The Greek word ‘polis’, meaning city-state, conveyed the attractive notion of a city as a community with a population such that it is possible to know everyone, and that this community could become an extended family. The modern city requires a similar thought process. Although impossible to recognise the entire population of a major city, each building, each firm needs to become its’ own small world. However, stacked skyscrapers break these connections, separating communities inside. Business that would once be done face to face, shouting over a wooden table, is constructed and managed through wires. The encroachment of skyscrapers overhead has seen Beijing, according to Yung Ho Chang, become more hostile. The family communities which formed a structure for the life of the city have moved out. Thus, that which was the fundamental building block of society has crumbled; such relationships cannot be replaced with nine to five office hours. The economic activities that drew families and traders to venture into Rome, Babylon and Mesopotamia, now force families, and workers on the lower rungs of society, out into the suburbs. The city centre has changed its own focus, acting as a beacon of the nation’s wealth. Rather than the temple being a public monument portraying the heart of a nations’ faith, the Shard demonstrates to the world that London is able to construct 72 floors of glass and steel, yet only fill 10 of them.
Technology can easily define the use of the city. From the provision of scales in the market place, attracting traders to fairer transactions, to the formation of Skype, allowing workers to lead a sedentary life in the suburbs whilst still running a multi-million pound company. Such technology can negate the need for a physical location within commerce. But the city still survives as a figurehead of a nation, or because it advertises the affluence of firms in the country. A city automatically becomes the hub of a nation, both tangibly and intangibly. Wealth accrues wealth, and major cities remain the first to receive new transport links, thus further increasing their reach. This fundamental principle is vital in any period. However, what should be learnt from that in both ancient and modern cities, is that while these factors may progress, other elements that determine the success of modern architecture should not be forgotten. An architect is, after all, according to Vitruvius, made up of many different professions, just as successful architecture is built on many different factors. The ability to provide a city which functions for residents as well as traders was fundamental to sites in Mesopotamia and Rome and should be seriously considered today. However, a rush to meet demand and provide a wide range of services to service every need will only lead to an architectural over complication. The despair of the 1960’s residential blocks that blot the landscape of Manchester is a major help in advocating the need to consider a steady development of the city.
Although modern architecture appears to be far from that of ancient Mesopotamia and older settlements, behind the new technology, advances in materials and differing social structures, little has changed in the purpose and direction surrounding the profession. The idea that cities originates as a hub for people to arrive at with the intention of improving their lives is never more potent considering the recent movement of refugees following several civil wars in the East. The design of a city determines and influences both individuals and communities as a whole. In this, very basic sense, the ideas that governed these original settlements still decide and influence how we perceive cities in the 21st century. Architects and the subject entirety need to reassess the focus of a modern city, deciding whether it opens itself up to the world or simply satisfies its local community. The decision as to this will determine the relevance of the origin of cities to modern architecture, and whether we are fated to just repeat the high and lows of past societal activities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carl, P. (1983). Ancient Mesopotamia and the Foundation of Architectural Representation. Princeton Journal, 170-186. Girouard, M. (1995). Cities and People. London: Yale University Press. Hustwit, G. (Director). (2011). Urbanized [Motion Picture]. Kitto, H. (1951). The Greeks. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Mumford, L. (1968). The City in History. San Diego: Harcourt Brace International. Oppenheim, A. (1977). Portrait of a Dead Civilisation. Chicago: University of Chicage Press. Sjoberg, G. (1966). Cities. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Smith, A. (1999). Wealth of Nations. St Ives: Clays Ltd. Weber, E. (1989). Mesopotamia. Lecture. WGBH Boston.