Blogs > Cliopatria > Onward and Outward

Oct 26, 2005

Onward and Outward




Fritz Lang seduced Weimar audiences (as well as a few contemporary film critics) with his bold vision of the future city and architecture in Metropolis (review). Tall towers reach to the sky; automobiles move high above the ground on raised highways; biplanes weaving between the buildings; the workers toil far below on the sunless surface. Lang had taken his impression of the New York cityscape to the extreme. The design elements (as well as the robot) often overpower a conventional story about labor relations as well as a much needed message about moderation and mediation.



Lang had the opportunity to see the true future city unfold before his eyes when he hid from the Nazis in Los Angeles and filmed thoughtful noires. Against the backdrop of criticism and the decline of the efficient Red Car system (links to histories and bibliographies) (immortalized by another film, Who framed Roger Rabbit?), Los Angeles broke from the pattern of American cities reaching to the sky to create, what Edward Soja has called, the postmodern city.

But here is the kicker: Los Angeles is the densest city in the United States (HT: Kevin Drum).

Los Angeles is not a particularly good example of urban sprawl. Take the part about being unplanned. The truth is that New York, Chicago and most of the older American cities had their greatest growth before there was anything resembling real public planning; the most basic American land planning tool, zoning, did not come into widespread use until the 1920s.

L.A., by contrast, was one of the country's zoning pioneers. It has had most of its growth since the 1920s, during a period when planning was already important, and particularly since World War II, when California cities have been subject to more planning than cities virtually anywhere else in the country.



Then there is the part about how the city is too dispersed. Although it is true that the Los Angeles region in its early years had widely scattered settlements, these settlements were not particularly low in density. Since World War II, moreover, the density of the Los Angeles region has climbed dramatically, while that of older cities in the North and East has plummeted. The result is that today the Los Angeles urbanized area, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, has just over 7,000 people per square mile — by a fair margin the densest in the United States.

Perhaps that should have been obvious. In the absence of high-rise appartments and office buildings (except in a few places) Angelenos settled into a pattern of narrow plots of land that limited the amount of undeveloped space. My wife calls them"postage stamps." But it also kept houses close together.

Technology, once used to drive human beings, air and power upward and light downward and inward, allowed people to move outward and away from one another, sometime isolating themselves from each other in otherwise contiguous spaces. The city retained its importance, as William J. Mitchell has written in Placing Words, by creating contexts for social and cultural relations -- spaces wherein signs and relationships find meaning:

Architecture no longer can (if it ever could) be understood as an autonomous medium of mass, space and light, but now serves as the constructed ground for encountering and extracting meaning from cross-connected flows of aural, textual and graphic, and digital information through global networks.

The skyscrapers that have been built outside already built up areas (as in Southeast Asia) represent prestige rather than utility. As the topography of ideas has been raised by technology, the topography of architecture has decreased.

Sprawl, as Geinter has noted, has been part of the urban tradition. Even to some degree urbanization avoided, as much as possible, increasing heights, both for health reasons and to maintain the visual character of the city (as I wrote here about Paris). The preoccupation of urban planners in Europe was to allow as much open space as possible so that light and air can get to street level, and the monumental architecture was still visible. Indeed, if there is anything tall in Berlin, it is either a shopping center in the west or a piece of technology in the east.

How funny that if it were not for the smog (as much a result of geography as the automobile), Los Angeles would have achieved these health concerns. What Los Angeles did not do, as is the cases of suburban sprawl, is drive people away from one another. A density of social relations still exists.

The stratospheric city may have been an historical phase in which the quest for prestige and utility found common ground upon which to build and the legitimacy to overcome public health concerns. It gave way to the edgeless city, driving outward rather than upward.

Links:



(Crossposted from The Rhine River.)


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Charles V. Mutschler - 10/27/2005

Interestingly, the bibliography in the web site misses the best over-view of the history of interurbans, and the one tied to academics (albeit an economist, not a historian). Hiton, George W. and John F. Due. _The Electric Interurban Railway in America_ (Stanford, 1964) is still the best starting point for the study of the industry.

Although the popular story, perpetuated in _Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_ is not going away, the reality is much less exciting, and follows Hilton and Due's analysis. People voted with their feet,and when they could afford automobiles, they opted for private autos over any form of mass transit. The Pacific Electric was a wonderful system, but by the time it was sold off to National City Lines and Souther Pacific, the trend was very hard to ignore - the interurban was not profitable and no governmental body seemed particularly interested in taking it over, especially since they were already paying to build the streets and freeways.

With 20-20 hindsight, it is easy to mourn the passing of the PE, and there is great irony in seeing billions being spent to re-create what had once been. Still, not all cities are following the same paths. It is intereswting to compare the appraoches to transit planning and development in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. Seattle, which was an early advocate of municipal street railway ownership, has been very slow to consider a return to what is now called "light rail," and my grandparents knew as trolleys. A single line, using old equipment, and operating in part as a tourist draw, runs along the Seattle waterfront. Efforts to encourage Seattle to design for rail transit have not been popular with voters. Portland began rebuilding a portion of the old Portland Traction Co. Gresham line, and found it was efficient, and popular with riders. The new governmentally owned and operated light rail system, called "MAX" (Metropolitan Area eXpress) has been expanded over the past decade, and seems to be doing well.

Sometimes the past truly is prolog, but not always.

CVM


Rob MacDougall - 10/27/2005

Excellent post, Nathanael, and not just for the mention of a robot. I will have to revise my perception of Los Angeles somewhat.

Your post also reminds me of a talk by Martin Melosi (I blogged about it over a year ago) about automobiles and cities. The term and the idea of "sprawl" imply a sort of unplanned, possibly inevitable side effect of automobiles. But the shape of the sprawling North American city, Melosi said, is really a political construction - the result of choices and patterns in municipal politics after WWII that gave big city governments sweeping powers of annexation. The modern “ring city” is similarly a product in part of the political power of the exurbs and suburbs.

Melosi talked about density too, but I can't remember exactly what he said there. I believe he suggested that a more meaningful metric than population density in terms of measuring livability would be what percentage of surface area is alloted to automobiles (roads, garages, parking lots - what ronald Horvath called "machine space") and what percentage alloted to human beings.


Louis N Proyect - 10/26/2005

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/metropolis.htm