Blog 6: Urban Planner

The two urban planners that I will be sharing my thoughts on are Daniel Burnham and Andres Duany. 

Burnham pioneered the City Beautiful movement, aiming to implement neoclassical architecture, grand boulevards, and broad highways within cities in an attempt to increase harmony, promote civic virtue, and make American cities more aesthetically pleasing (which can be seen in Washington DC, Kansas City, etc). I agree with many of Burnham's principles as I think that the majority of us enjoy living in pretty cities, and that living in one can elevate one's mental and physical health. That being said, I don't like all aspects of it as this movement has been critiqued for failing to socially reform cities since it mostly influenced areas of cities with middle and upper class residents.  

Meanwhile, Duany pioneered the New Urbanism movement which was characterized by sustainability, walkability, and high-rise, low density, diverse neighbourhoods (which can be seen in Seaside, Florida, Harbor Town, Tennessee, etc.). I support this movement because of its holistic, pragmatic approach and care for the future. While living in pretty cities is a bonus, I think that it's more important to consider pertinent issues such as climate change and social justice issues when reforming and planning a city. 

While the City Beautiful movement largely ended in the 1930s, new urbanism continues to be implemented in our world today. 'Garden cities' like Singapore that emphasize nature and renewability echo Duany's principles of environmental sustainability, and cities are beginning to become more pedestrian friendly by implementing more walking and biking paths, also mirroring Duany's ideas of walkability. Therefore, I think that overall Duany was more influential than Burnham.

What is a City?

I agreed with most of the defining characteristics that Kostof elaborated on; however, I also saw Singapore as an exception to some of them. 

To begin with, I found it interesting that Kostof commented on both the physical aspects of cities such as cities being in clusters and engaged with the countryside, as well as the more social domains like the social hierarchies and high density of cities. I could connect many of these aspects to Singapore. For instance, it was interesting to me how the physical circumscription of Singapore is based on its geography as it is an island. Going back to the concept of modernism, I could also see monumental definition in Singapore with buildings that had significant form such as Marina Bay Sands and the Esplanade. I also believe that Singapore exemplifies Kostof's point of how cities cannot be homogenous and how a social hierarchy is necessary. Here, there is a diverse mix of races and religions, as well as an unequal distribution of wealth. I wondered if certain ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in the higher or lower classes, and I found that the upper class is unsurprisingly predominantly composed of European and Chinese men. The working class composes the bulk of the Singaporean population (75%), and current trends point towards Singapore being more divided in terms of class as opposed to religions or races. In regards to sources of income, Singapore doesn't have much land space for agriculture; however, utilizing its geographic resources, it is a large port and trading center. 

However, there are also some characteristics of cities that I don't think Singapore entirely mirrors. For example, Kostof explains how cities come in clusters which creates an urban hierarchy. But, there obviously aren't other cities within Singapore. Perhaps on a smaller scale, an urban hierarchy in terms of the districts in Singapore can be seen with Marina Bay being richer and more esteemed than the Woodlands. Kostof also adds how cities are intimately engaged with the countryside, but Singapore doesn't have a countryside. Instead, it relies heavily on imported goods and in return offers a source of income. 

Finally, Kostof writes how the most enduring feature of a city is its physical build (taking into account modern trends while preserving past urban culture). Although Singapore is a new country, I think that to a certain extent it exemplifies this concept well: it has higher-tech buildings like Keppel Bay, but also more antique places like the Sultan Mosque. Therefore, I believe that Kostof's definition of a city holds true to a large extent but perhaps cannot be generalized to fit all cities. 

Modernism

The influence of modernism is evident when viewing Singapore's architecture. Evidence of Corbusier and Gropius's urban development styles can be witnessed in Singapore's HDB blocks and other condos such as Braddell View and Clementi Park as they are identifiable by their uniformity, tall height, and high density. They are functional buildings that minimize land space, so that more space can be allocated towards creating nodes and other green spaces.

Braddell View

https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/project/braddell-view-199

Besides these architectural designs, remnants of the Brutalist era which spanned from the 1950s to the mid 70s can also still be observed in Singapore when viewing the People's Park Complex. Built in 1973, the People's Park Complex was considered an exceedingly successful project as Singapore's first shopping center atrium was built within the building which revitalized Chinatown. The building consists of strict geometric lines and had an exposed raw concrete exterior (this was later changed), and along with its large size (103 meters tall), it clearly mirrors the principles of Brutalism.

People's Park Complex

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/peoples-park-complex-peoples-park-centre-visited-covid-19-cases-while-infectious

In addition to these styles, evidence of post modernism - the direct opposition to brutalism - can be seen when looking at Reflections at Keppel Bay or Marina Bay Sands as these buildings overlook the water, appear 'futuristic', and architecturally have more interesting designs than brutalist buildings. Besides Marina Bay Sands, some other buildings that have significant form include the Helix, Bishan Public Library, and the Esplanade, as modern advancements in engineering have allowed architects to expand beyond straight blocks.

 

Reflections at Keppel Bay

https://libeskind.com/work/reflections-at-keppel-bay/

Helix Bridge

https://www.essentialhome.eu/inspirations/lifestyle/helix-bridge-spectacular-bridge-singapore/

Engels and Faraday

The Industrial Revolution transformed the landscapes of cities. As it gave rise to ground-breaking inventions such as the cotton gin and steam engine, the topography of cities and social hierarchy were also reshaped. This can particularly be seen when looking at Manchester and London. As Engels and Faraday observed respectively, the River Irk in 1844 and the River Thames in 1855 were filled to the brim with debris and refuse. Foul odors omitted from the rivers and there was a lack of care for health. This demonstrates how becoming more economically successful and developed than other cities was a main objective for cities at the time as this was prioritized over human health, which contrasts with the current more biotechnic era that we are living in. Besides this, Engels expounds on how the working-mens quarters were extremely small, densely populated, and unsanitary. The horrible living conditions and physical separation of these men from the rest of society illustrate how deep class divide was at the time. The Industrial Revolution widened the gap between the rich and the poor with struggles of class and power changing the topography of cities, so that these working-men lived in separate districts of their own. Therefore, the commentary that both of these men provide exhibit how the Industrial Revolution was both detrimental for the environment and influential in changing the city's social structure.