Concerns about health and hygiene figure prominently in modernist urbanism and urban planning. Using Ebenezer Howard's Garden City and Le Corbusier's Contemporary City for Three Million as your point of focus, explore how this might be the case. What particular health concerns vis-a-vis the metropolis did these urban theorists have? How did they believe they could remedy the "ills" of modern urban life? What specific spatial strategies did they adopt in an effort to execute their ideas? What role, if any, did technology play for them? What are the major simiarities and/or differences between the Garden City model, as it was originally conceived, and the Contemporary City? Do you believe that their schemes were inspired by biological considerations alone? Or do you think that their ideas could have also been shaped by politics or economics?
Introduction:
Modern cities are obviously important parts of our lifestyle and the important thing is to live in a clean and varied environment while at the same time enjoying all that a city life has to offer. Both Ebenzer Howard’s Garden City and Le Corbusier’s City for Three Million demonstrate certain characteristics which are positive and avant-garde in the way of planning and the end result is definitely something to be proud of. One has to focus on the fact that cities in the time of these urban planners were essentially full of sickness and several maladies apart from badly planned expansionism and drainage problems which only increased as the said cities became bigger. Both Howard and Le Corbusier offered solutions which were definitely a breath of fresh air when compared to what was available at that point in time.
Definitely both urban planners were deeply concerned with the conditions of the working class in cities such as London and Paris which were little more than stinking hovels in the very sense of the word. Dwellings were packed tightly together with practically no sanitation system and this meant that diseases and maladies were commonplace. Large families often lived in large numbers in only one room and this meant that the life expectancy of those living in these types of cities was very low indeed. Howrad and Le Corbusier advocated wider streets planned according to the grid system, open avenues which allowed the air to circle through and not stifle as well as a large number of public spaces and gardens to allow for relaxation and the intake of fresh air as well as exercise to ensure that there would no longer be overcrowding and misery in such cities.
Remedies to improve modern urban life
As already indicated both Howard and Le Corbusier advocated a wide grid system of streets to improve urban city life. This initially meant that the streets were to be much wider and would contain housing blocks which would have more rooms and be more spacious. Howard also advocated creating gardens and open spaces which would allow for recreation and exercise as this was essentially the lifeblood of any city. Thus a large number of public buildings were erected in the cities which both urban planners worked upon and which still dominate the skyline of each city on which they left their mark.
Spacial strategies and technology
Both Howard and Le Corbusier looked at the city with an open mind which was essentially the major part of their plan. This meant that the wide open spaces were always an essential part of their philosophy which at the end of the day intrinsically meant that everything had to serve a purpose. One can also observe how other urban planners copied Le Corbusier’s method for Paris in other cities such as New York where Robert Moses reigned supreme with his techniques for large bridges and other structures that were essentially part and parcel of his own futuristic long term strategy. Technology obviously played an important role in this respect as it enabled buildings to be made of stronger material and the lighting and plumbing techniques inside the city also made it a much better place to live in.
Similarities and differences
Obviously enough both concepts have their own similarities and differences although at the end of the day there are more similarities than differences. Principally one should look at Le Corbusier’s advocating of open spaces which is very much close to what Howard planned for his garden city. The concept of the use of space develops importantly and this also means that the streets which were planned by Le Corbusier were broadly similar to what Howard essentially advocated too.
The garden system proposed by Howard also essentially had the same scope as that of Le Corbusier who focused on the giving back of space to residents. This obviously meant that the open space would eliminate the bad sanitation and overcrowding which plagued old cities and which made them such unhealthy places to live in. Howard’s treatise ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ focuses intrinsically on creating a link between man and nature which perhaps was not there before.
Biological considerations:
These were not the only considerations which were taken into account when cities were being planned. Undoubtedly there was the issue of political power and prowess which hugely influenced what was going on in the building of cities in that day and age. The influence of Roman and Greek architecture in the planning of cities was also very much the issue especially where Le Corbusier was concerned.
Greek and Roman architecture have similar traits between them but they are also different in many ways. Perhaps the finest examples of architecture in this sense are the Colosseum in Rome and the Temple of Athena in Greece. Each has a distinct style which brings together the natural characteristics of both works with the Greek focused mainly on Doric columns and a certain mysticism. The Colosseum on the other hand is a huge structure with considerable prowess and the capacity to thrill. The public buildings all had their ways and means to attract people but they were largely the focus of other stories in the sense that they attracted a certain level of people to their fold.
The public buildings in Greece and Rome would still attract a considerable number of patrons if they were built today. The vast open spaces and intrinsic hegemony of the buildings show a vast system of patronage which can only be described as futuristic. Although the styles of the public buildings differed, their techniques were essentially the same and focused on glorifying the Gods and the rulers with power.
