In a society where architects’ creative desires and ambitions seem to dominate over the needs and wants of the general public, it is essential to question how urban identity is attempted to be created and whether such architectural endeavours result in better urban regions?
According to the UN, two-thirds of the world’s population will reside in cities by 2050, with Nigeria, China, and India expected to spearhead a rapid increase in urbanisation (Meredith, 2018). Approximately 2.5 billion people will reside in cities throughout the course of the next century due to both demographic changes and general population expansion, it is therefore imperative to design and plan cities more sustainably.
However, it remains questionable for whom architects and urban planners are developing these urban cultures and identities. Are the people’s opinions being taken into account while planning these recently constructed and developing urban areas, or are they being disregarded? How is the outcome impacting the city’s dynamics and urban cultures as well as the cities’ broader context in terms of politics, economics, social factors, and so forth?
Similar to theorist and architect Christopher Alexander, who felt that ordinary people, not just professionals in the field, should have a say in how their homes, neighbourhoods, and cities are designed (Green, 2022), the wants of the public should also be reflected in newly developing urban areas rather than just those of designers. If both desires can be met, then a more advanced, sustainable city can be constructed.
Using “A City is not a Tree” by Christopher Alexander” as primary sources for investigation and Chandigarh, India as a case study, this essay will examine and challenge architects’ approaches to creating urban identities and cities and how their choices impact society at large. This essay will also explore Manhattan, New York, as an opportunist city that shows how designers can enhance urban cultures and cities by adapting their methods to a “semi-lattice” city approach that considers the needs of the general public as well as the larger city context.
“Most of the wonderful places in the world were not made by architects but by the people” (Alexander, 1977)
The Architect VS The People
The awareness that mankind has the technology to utterly modify and destroy the global environment changed the mentality and treatment of cities worldwide after World War II. In his piece “Invisible City,” Arata Isozaki discusses the reason urbanism is non-existent in a country such as Japan. “Everything I thought was timeless and unchangeable in architecture was destroyed”(Isozaki, 1966).
The Isozaki quote reveals that, after World War II, there was not only the physical destruction of cities but also a programmatic, philosophical, symbolic, and social obliteration that fuelled the notion of a new society. The desire to develop new urbanism that embraces technology and rapid change arose with these new found beliefs.
Although prominent and promising to heal the wounds of World War II, urbanism’s shortcomings were exacerbated. The majority of today’s cities are shaped by the problems of urbanism that arose from the modernist movement’s attempt to create a “new utopian city”. Urban planning conceptions fell victim to this movement’s continual fluctuation “between a retarded conception of science and a reluctant recognition of poetics,” as stated by Rowe and Koetter (1978:3). Rather than considering the future of the generations that would be confined to these communities, cities were actually being constructed based on the utopian ideologies and aspirations of architects (Figure 1 & 2).
To fend off the Ottoman Empire, Palma Nova was constructed close to the Slovenian border in the late sixteenth century. Palma Nova was intended to reflect the goodwill of the new occupants, but nobody wanted to take the chance of residing in what was a military fortress. Consequently, the Venetian authorities released inmates from prison and offered them property so they could repopulate the city’s streets. About 5,400 people live in Palma Nova currently.
Figure 1 -Artsy.net
Known as “The Ghost City of China,” New Ordos is an Inner Mongolian town situated slightly to the south of Old Ordos. The super city, which would have over 100 homes created by international architects and a massive statue of Genghis Khan facing the centre plaza, was built with billions of dollars invested by the Chinese government in the early 2000s. Owing to the billion-dollar investment, the city’s property values surged, and few people could afford to reside in such a region, leaving it abandoned and a wasted endeavour.
Figure 2 -ArchDaily
Le Corbusier’s utopian vision of Chandigarh, which he designed in the 1950s, perfectly embodies Alexander’s criticism of the logic of modern urbanism. According to Alexander’s theory, Chandigarh can be viewed as an “artificial city,” which is akin to a tree whose branches spread outward without being connected to any other point on the tree (Figure 3).
The unique quality of being a planned modern Indian city and the conscious goal of its creators, Jawaharlal Nehru, who ordered the city’s development, to create a future “unfettered by the traditions of the past,” are what give Chandigarh its distinctive characters (Patel, 2022) that led to the downfall of the urban region. Chandigarh aimed to build a completely new future that was orderly and symmetrical, removing all traces of the past from the city’s foundation. As a result, residents gradually lost their identities and heritage, eliminating any cultural expression that defined urban life and enabling “the city to take a further step towards dissociation” (Alexander, 1965 as cited in Larice and Macdonald, 2013:166).
Alexander (1965 as cited in Mehaffy, 2016:16) defined these characteristics as a “compulsive desire for neatness and order that insists that the candlesticks on a mantelpiece be perfectly straight and perfectly symmetrical about the centre”.
As the self-contained unit isolated and insulated its occupants from one another, each sector was composed of its own reality. The inward-looking layout of each sector limited any shared urban experience by keeping its inhabitants cut off from the outside world. According to planners today “the city was more designed than planned” (AR Editors, 2003).
The intricacy and high technological requirements of modern architecture make it impossible for one designer to embark on such a large project by themselves. Le Corbusier, however, was adamant about solving every building problem on his own, without seeking advice from anyone. Over time, architects Maxwell Fry and Albert Mayer, who were supposed to collaborate with Le Corbusier on the project, left the project because they realised that Le Corbusier was determined to carry out his own vision (Vikramaditya, 2016).
This as a result has led to dense urban activities being discouraged by zoning restrictions and the solitude of roads and avenues. The city’s rigid urban structure is a symbol of the extensive network of metropolitan villages that only the citizens of Chandigarh have had to endure.
The prioritisation of aesthetics, order, and Le Corbusier’s goals in Chandigarh overshadowed the significance of flexibility and environmental conservation. A city must be able to both reflect and adapt to the evolution of its residents in order to thrive. This is similar to Alexander’s “semi-lattice” theory of urbanism, which maintains that cities represent dynamic, organic growth because their constituent elements are interrelated and respond to one another (Figure 3).
However, in Chandigarh’s instance, the tree-like system “cut the life of Chandigarh people within to pieces” (Alexander 1965 as cited in Larice and Macdonald, 2013:166) and affected the entire city as it was a fixed design that would only work for that era.
The “semi-lattice” technique results in an improved urban plan that combines structural and social elements in a way that satisfies the population and makes the city easy to access and navigate as opposed to having isolated areas that are hard to access and promote concentrated and segregated neighbourhoods like that of a “tree” system.
Figure 3
Chandigarh VS Manhattan
Chandigarh and Manhattan exhibit distinct urban growth patterns that are indicative of Alexander’s concept of “artificial and natural cities”.
Using the transit lines in each city as illustrations, we can argue the concepts of tree and semi-lattice. There are two central hubs in Chandigarh (Figure 4), each serving a different neighbourhood. The northern neighbourhood is served by “Bus Stop 1”, while the southern neighbourhood is served by “Bus Stop 2”. Compared to Chandigarh, Manhattan (Figure 5) has a far larger number of interconnected bus stations, which facilitates movement throughout the city without requiring a stopover at a central point.
In Chandigarh, to get to the areas served by a central bus stop, there are multiple leg travels required, together with challenges such as multiple bus lines, bus transfers, and extensive walking or biking. These trips require a substantial time commitment. Another option is to drive, provided that one has access to a car, can find and pay for parking near their home and destination, and can avoid congestion. Chandigarh, like Manhattan, can have a multifaceted framework, meaning that there are multiple centres of activity instead of just one. This will lead to a more decentralised region that not only facilitates easier transportation for individuals, but also fosters adaptability and diversity within the city.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Examining the differences in mixed-use development between the cities further demonstrates how Manhattan’s strategy has resulted in a superior city. Manhattan’s communities display a diverse range of residential, economic, and cultural pursuits, resulting in lively and dynamic cityscapes (Figure 6). According to Alexander (1965 as cited in Mehaffy, 2016:23), mixed development has allowed Manhattan to “find its own space and now creates its own atmosphere”. Chandigarh on the other hand is separated into various sectors, each of which is assigned a certain purpose (Figure 7).
Figure 6
Figure 7 - Assetyogi
The grid system, wealth and housing hierarchies, and other factors make it challenging for the typical person to live, work, and play in the same sector. However, beyond the lines drawn by the city’s tree grid, Chandigarh is made up of people and their working environments. These components’ existence and their overlap suggest that, despite Chandigarh’s tree-like appearance, the living systems of the city produce a semi lattice (Figures 8 & 9) to which city planners will need to adapt to.
Figure 8
Figure 9
In conclusion, the process of establishing a city involves transforming an area into a more cohesive whole. A city “is a receptacle for life,” according to Alexander (1965, cited in Mehaffy, 2016:32), and as such, it ought to directly impact and be influenced by the living community of which it is composed.
While vital creative ideas and aspirations emerge and continue to challenge the city’s very existence, it is crucial that these desires and approaches represent the voices of the community members who are confined to the impact of the approaches.
Although the tree concept may be the simplest instrument for large-scale planning, if a city is to grow and face the challenges of future eras, “the city is not, cannot and must not be a tree” (Alexander 1965, cited in Mehaffy, 2016:32).
Much like the rest of the universe and civilization, cities are ever-changing. While Chandigarh may profit from certain factors now, how likely is it that these advantages would still apply in 50 years, when society will have moved past the “modernist utopian vision” and onto newer concepts?
Understanding the motivations behind architectural concepts and planning strategies, as well as how they affect cities and society, is crucial for urban designers to build more sustainable and dynamic cities that can expand to accommodate new regions and evolve along with the city and its people.
Such understanding will pave the way for the integration of the social attributes of city dwellers with the structural components of architecture. With new cities being constructed, and existing ones being transformed, we have more opportunities to apply our knowledge to enhance not just the architectural community but also the city and its larger context.
Comments