|
Lessons on urbanism from the City of Light
|
View this Thread in Original format
| dEsidEL |
| quote: |
Apr. 4, 2004. 09:25 AM
Lessons on urbanism from the City of Light
CHRISTOPHER HUME
PARIS—It's a long way from here to Toronto: seven hours by plane, an eon by design.
For a Canadian in Paris, the message is painfully clear: the word "city" means something altogether different in North America than it does in France and Europe. Comparisons are pointless, of course; Europe has a history of urbanity that dates back centuries.
Still, one can't help but wonder where we went wrong and why our cities have failed so completely. It's true that North America's dependence on the car has inflicted enormous damage on its urban centres, but the same thing is happening in France. The suburbs of many French cities are as ghastly as anything we have here; parking lots, big-box stores and junk-food outlets abound.
Despite all this, there's no question that Europeans have a shared understanding of what a city is. That can be seen in hundreds of towns across the continent, each based on specific ideas of what constitutes urbanity. The roots of these ideas lie in notions of density, land use and defence that go back to long before the disciplines of urban design and even architecture emerged from the primal intellectual slime.
By contrast, many North American cities were originally laid out by military engineers. They created the geometry of the street grid that to this day defines cities as diverse as Toronto and Savannah. These grids were a brilliant solution to the problem of how to separate space yet connect it.
Compared to the maze-like layout of old European communities, these New World communities were open, accessible, clean and safe. The walled cities of earlier centuries were a response to the need for protection. when Napoleon III commissioned Baron Hausmann to redesign Paris in the 1860s, the population was approaching 1 million. Napoleon's intention was to sweep away the medieval city and make way for something more modern, spacious and rational.
Though Hausmann dislodged tens of thousands of Parisians in the process of remaking the capital, his great boulevards lined with six- to eight-storey apartments form the basis of the city we know today. Paris may no longer be the cultural centre it was up to World War II, but it remains a city that's as fully inhabited by its residents as any on the planet.
Maybe this is what distinguishes European cities from their North American counterparts. Certainly, Canadians live in their cities, but they don't inhabit them as completely. The critical mass of sidewalks, squares, trees, parks, public transit, humanly scaled buildings, not to mention cafés, simply doesn't exist here. The climate doesn't help, it's true, but there's much more to it than winter.
Ultimately, the difference reflects something about our relationship with the world around us. The North American ideal, which in many ways is profoundly anti-urban, is based not on the family, as we like to think, but on the home. Home is a place, a man's castle, inviolate and separate from what's around it.
In Europe, on the other hand, a man's castle is his city. It is living room, dining room, backyard and vehicle. The streets are his hallways and the parks his garden.
The very idea of the single-family home, which lies at the heart of North American urbanism, has much less currency in Europe. In Paris, where apartments vastly outnumber houses, life is necessarily denser, more urban.
So it's hardly surprising that European cities have a coherence and a consistency that's entirely absent from ours in North America. The height, between six and eight storeys, predominates not only in Paris, but also Berlin, Barcelona, London ... in city after city, the streets are defined by such buildings. Though each building differs, each is based on a similar assumption about its role, its contribution to the larger whole.
It is precisely this sense of being part of something larger that's absent from so many North American cities. New York is an obvious exception. Vancouver, with its enlightened urban design regime, might well be there in years to come, if not yet.
For cities such as Toronto, which have opted for sprawl over density, cars over public transit, private space over public realm, SUVs over smart cars, the future doesn't look promising. Perhaps the future of Paris doesn't either, but it has history on its side, which can't be said of a city as young as Toronto.
Just as important, Paris exists within a legislative and economic framework that has allowed it to maintain and improve its infrastructure. Every French taxpayer spends the equivalent of $75 annually on its upkeep. Meanwhile, Canadian cities are creatures of the provinces. They're the country's great wealth generators but are perennially cash-starved.
Toronto will never be the City of Light, but it does deserve a chance to come in from the dark.
|
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483202845 |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
The other month, i remember that Toronto's government were trying to pass bills on how to reverse the "manhattanization" of Toronto. Toronto MP's were in favour of a European style layout.
Wierd.
Thanks for that article. |
|
|
| Avro |
good article, not sure of its point. perhaps that changes are needed or that euro cities are better.
I believe
grids are good
toronto transportation system is among the worlds worst
euro transport system is efficient but getting around by walking or car is difficult
urban sprawl does take away from a city cultrually
because we have cars and space we can and do have more houses
1 billion dollares has been granted to the TTC by the govt - I will bet that nothing good will be done with it. |
|
|
| ryanm |
what an amazing article. I couldn't agree with it anymore. There are a few things that I think are fundamentally European and should remain European and vise versa. I believe that the "american dream" was founded on the idea of the home....and of owning ones home. I know this is a very materialistic ideal but nonetheless its one that has made North America the way it is today and thus should be preserved. However the rate that we are consuming land, cities like Toronto are going to starve themselves economically and eventually they will begin to fall apart. One of the perfect examples of this is Detroit.
The point about Toronto being a winter city thus increasing the attractiveness of the car is crap IMO. If you live downtown, you can walk to a subway or a frequent bus stop within 10 minutes and of all the days in winter, only maybe 15 are really really cold. So those days you could drive if you wanted in the one vehicle that your family/household shares. Having an average of 3.8 vehicles per household in the suburbs is definitely not good for many fundamental reasons, as discussed in the article.
Toronto has the potential to having a world class transportation system again but we have to start changing the views of people who beleive that the suburbs are the better way to live. The only way this will ever be accomplished is by including it in the primary education system. Its about changing a way of life, and a way of living.
BTW, that $1.1 billion going to TTC comes with strings. a lot of it wont come until the 5th year which means more cuts and restrictions plus nearly $200 million of it is for a fare integration plan between all GTA transit agencies, kinda like a smart card. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
that billion is peanuts, and over five years mind you... it takes much more to bring the transportation system to level found in european cities.
They are halfway done building 3 subway stations on the island where I live and its costing something like 780M... insane! |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
that billion is peanuts, and over five years mind you... it takes much more to bring the transportation system to level found in european cities.
They are halfway done building 3 subway stations on the island where I live and its costing something like 780M... insane! |
what drives me crazy the most is that many of the subways here were built before the ones in Europe ..
and that 780M price tag is nuts! i posted another article here once about how Madrid was able to build something like 114km of subway in less than 5 years and TO can't even build 7km in 10 !! wtf! :whip:
|
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
what drives me crazy the most is that many of the subways here were built before the ones in Europe ..
and that 780M price tag is nuts! i posted another article here once about how Madrid was able to build something like 114km of subway in less than 5 years and TO can't even build 7km in 10 !! wtf! :whip:
|
wtf 114!!!! the one over here must be something like 5-6kms in about 4 years ?!!!!?!? |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Ultimately, the difference reflects something about our relationship with the world around us. The North American ideal, which in many ways is profoundly anti-urban, is based not on the family, as we like to think, but on the home. Home is a place, a man's castle, inviolate and separate from what's around it.
In Europe, on the other hand, a man's castle is his city. It is living room, dining room, backyard and vehicle. The streets are his hallways and the parks his garden.
|
Whoa... I've been trying to put the difference between the European and North American culture and style of living into proper words (without much success), and this just nailed it right on the head!! |
|
|
| bass drive |
the thing with toronto is that the downtown is moslty business oriented and not a hangout place. The side walks are narrow and way into traffic. I think we need more places like Yorkville (but not upscale).
the only streets I like to walk along with frinds is Queen st w and Front st E.
the other thing I dislike is the 'down tonwn' thing. I mean it would have bean nicer (imo) if Toronto had a city centre (say around Eglinton) and along the shore, it was more of a hanging/tourist oriented place (like most costal cities)
anyways, over all not a bad city, but could have been better :p |
|
|
|
|
