This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Argue a case, either for, or against, the value of using utopianism as a method in planning the future of a modern city of your choice. The essay is about the Auckland Supercity and is by Ryan Stamp, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.
Utopian thinkers have always based their ideal cities around the idea of creating the perfect society,some going as far as starting with an empty plot of land and building from the ground up. Modelsproduced by Howard, Wright and Le Corbusier all were significantly different to the cities that they were currently living in, which they felt needed to be changed for better. Their plans were intended to hopefully be implemented into their social environments, yet it was their radical and authoritarian view (Macleod, 2002) to adapt their plan to each society which restricted their idealcities adopting their plans.
Fishman (1977) tells that Howard focussed his ‘Garden City’ around decentralising the city and promoting more cooperation amongst residents. On the other hand, Wright felt that society shouldbe based on individualism, and that citizens would provide for themselves on their own land, whenhe created the ‘Broadacre City’. Finally Le Corbusier produced his ‘Radiant City’ showing how hewanted cities to operate under an industrialist focus, as organisations worked together to provide everything that the city should need.
Using these foundations to plan the future of Auckland city would not be plausible due to the social structure which has evolved over the past century. All of the electorates were combined to form a‘Supercity’ last year, removing many of the identities which had been formed by citizens overprevious decades. Along with this, there are many immigrants choosing to move into the city, due tothe lifestyle which New Zealand promotes. Finally, communities have had a chance to form identities and stereotypes, which local citizens use to identify which areas of the Auckland they both live and socialise in.
Auckland was the first in New Zealand to become a ‘Supercity’, where the government combined allof the local electorates, to operate under one set of rules and regulations. This goes against the utopian idea which Wright proposed (Fishman, 1977), where many smaller cities exist, rather than one major city. In his model each individual city would be connected, and allow the exchange of knowledge and goods/services. Applying this method to Auckland would require subdividing theregion into much smaller distinctive cities along with each having their own rules and regulations, ultimately removing the ‘Supercity’ which has been created. By combining the various electorates, the Government removed some of the individuality which these parts of the city had created in thepast (historically and culturally). Given the large population of Auckland (approximately 1.5 millionresidents) the idea of having many smaller cities would cause much disruption as to how people could exist. For example, adopting Howard’s ‘Garden City’ ideal of smaller clusters of cities, each with a population around 30,000 people (Fishman, 1977), would mean 50 cities existing within theAuckland region. Each would likely operate under its own accord, making development within the city varied and difficult to monitor.
Along with this, ‘Broadacre City’ was created around the boom in automobile ownership (andpotentially planes) to assist in the individualism Wright deemed to be efficient (Fishman, 2007).Auckland was designed around private transport (predominantly roads rather than a rail or tram system), yet has in recent years tried to tempt residents away from this, instead promoting the use of public transportation. Expecting residents to rely heavily on individual vehicles and networks of highways would not be beneficial to how the city operates, due to the traffic delays already caused on a daily basis. Wright’s ideal was also formed long before concerns were raised around fossil fuels being depleted or the damage vehicle emissions were doing to the environment.
Another flaw in Wright’s design was the hope that all of the city’s residents would acquire theminimum of one acre of land, or ‘as much as he can use’ (Fishman, 1977). On top of this, he expected residents to split their day equally, half tending to their plot of land, and the other in offices or factories. Auckland would not have the physical space to allow each family to receive an acre of land (or there about). This would physically expand the Auckland region, whilst likely require sacrificing protected reserves to meet demand. Wright would have envisioned residents flourishing having been given the freedom to tend to their own plot of land, growing produce which they could partly survive on. By having this expectation, production of other goods/services would significantly decrease as people would spend more time on their own personal agriculture, rather then providing for society. Having this expectation would not sit well with all residents, as land usage could not be monitored or enforced. Again, many people have different levels of pride towards their property,and since the individualistic method promotes a sense of freedom, many residents would likely neglect the land which has been provided for them as they see it as a gift.
A second point to consider, is that Auckland has become culturally diverse over the past few decades, due to the increase in immigrants which are choosing to settle within the city. A criticism of utopian ideals suggested by Moos and Brownstein (1977) is that the social perfection promoted by past thinkers, is intended to be a static implementation in society. After perfection has been created and reached, then there is little need for further improvement or innovation. This suggests that the values of society should never change as this would break any perfection which has been established. As many immigrants are choosing to reside within Auckland city, the culture and social values which is created by its population (both current and future) is forever changing. New residents bring with them different lifestyle preferences, depending on where they have previously lived, along with different skill sets which may or may not benefit society. This builds on the fact that society could never be perfect either, as thinks such as crime could never be truly eliminated. Pinder (2002) suggested that utopianism has historically been created based on a totalitarianism mindset. Because of this ideal, utopian plans have never taken off and simply remained a potential of what could be. For Auckland to be planned with a utopian way of thinking, an acceptance from society would be needed to ensure the success of the changes made. The Government puts in place rules and regulations to direct the development of a city, yet it is the democratic voice which ensures that the local citizens are able to have an opinion too. What is created for one point in time, for one city, is not likely to stay in place due to changing wants and needs. For example Howard’s ‘The Garden City’ was proposed to find the perfect ideal of living apart from industrial environments.In many cities around the world (including Auckland), industrial environments have over time been created amongst residential areas. Many people choose to live nearer to where they work, rather than spend more time commuting. If everyone wished to live away from commercial parts of thecity, there would be a distinct divide of residential and industrial clustering. This design would require heavy redevelopment of local areas, to create distinctive suburban areas which are away from industrial environments.
Communities have formed over decades, knowledge which people are aware of and use as a securityto avoid dangerous parts of the city (Macleod, 2002). Any sense of community would be depleted if we adapted Le Corbusier’s ‘Radiant City’ and implemented a hierarchical society (Fishman, 1977), where the industry leaders/wealthy citizens reside in the heart of the city, whilst the remainder of the population surround the core in satellite communities. Although Le Corbusier intended his plans to create a newfound sense of equality amongst the population, in practice it would prove difficult.This is because it would remove the security that surrounds the existing areas of the Auckland region. For instance, people are mentally aware of the safer parts of town, and the not so safe, or the wealthy areas to live in, or the poorer suburbs. These assumptions (of the local areas and the residents which live in them) allow the Auckland population to decide on where to purchase a house (based around desirability or cost), or simply where to socialise. Relocating people to different parts of Auckland (the heart of the city for instance), may not be appreciated by those that are involved. Residents choose where they live due to a number of factors (price, community culture, location to work, physical space and many other reasons).
A visual hierarchical system could cause a rift within organisations and society, as the employees lower down the hierarchy, or with a lower income, could feel segregated or inferior as they may be relocated to different parts of the city. A flow on effect of reorganising who lives where could lead to higher levels of crime or isolation of residents, who could reside with other people they are unfamiliar with and do not trust.
As you can see, society is constantly evolving. What may be ideal for society in one period of timemay not be ideal for another. It is both the planners and citizens that decide and shape the future of their cities and its communities. A utopian ideal may appear to be efficient in theory, yet is likely to not be accepted by the general population. Auckland has adapted to the growth of its physical location and its residents, by uniting the various cities to fall into a ‘Supercity’. Over the years, communities have evolved around the physical environment and the citizens which are a part of it. Left to their own devices, they have a vital say in the future of the city in which they live. For utopia to become a reality, the residents within Auckland would have to want to adopt a dramatic change, due to dire living situations, otherwise any proposed plan will likely face rejection.
References
Fishman, R. (1977). Introduction. In R. Fishman (Ed.), Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century:Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier (pp.3-20). Cambridge: MIT.
Fishman, R. (2007). “Beyond Suburbia: The Rise of Technoburb”. In R.T. LeGates and F.Stout (Eds.),The city reader (4th ed., pp69-77). London; New York: Routledge.
Macleod, D., & Ward, K., (2002). Spaces of utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the Contemporary City.Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3/4, pp 153-170. Retrieved on30 May 2012 from JSTOR Database.
Moos, R., & Brownstein, R., (1977) Antiutopian Criticisms. In Moos, R., & Brownstein, R. (1977).Environment and Utopia. New York: Plenum Press.
Pinder, D. (2002). In defence of Utopian Urbanism: Imagining Cities after the ‘End of Utopia’.Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3/4, pp. 229-241. Retrievedon 31 March 2012 from JSTOR Database.
No comments:
Post a Comment