There is something wrong about the modern city. The insecurity and separation have affected the quality of life; Beauty and community are retreating. When we see how our cities have changed in the last 50 years, we can not escape from the conclusion that our physical environment should be a part of the game of this decline. Post-war buildings and plans are the results of an unsuccessful modernist ideology that transforms most aspects of the life of the twentieth century from painting to politics and gives birth to our urban social ideas and urban ugliness. In architecture, the essence of modernity – the cult of change and change – has given us sterility and inhumanity rather than our proposed progress and freedom. Dreaming and professional ego has left our cities with decay and misery, which is the right breeding land for isolation and cruelty, which has reduced community life.
Some of us see those cities which we admire for solutions from the past. In traditional cities like Siena in England or Bath in England, we can see something that is not only beautiful but vibrant and humane – it seems to destroy modernity if we find ourselves in these traditional cities and more To know, we are restoring traditional architecture and the city’s plan, with this impulse to help make the city more and more; Make the city more and more; From Portland, Oregon to Patterson Square in London, from Brussels to Brussels, Florida.
We call those places which have traditionally inspired this movement, but, apart from the simple fact of being old, how do we define a traditional city? I do not know. I do not know.
Do any of us know? We talk about traditions and cities because we all knew what these things were, and we compare the past with the notion that we can actually do something like this today. But if we are not talking in the same language, then what do we expect?
The word “city” has been taken from Latin for citizens and is basically a community of citizens. This does not mean that whatever comparison we have with classical antiquity, it should also accept the huge difference in size. The average population of the former Greek Greek city is slightly above 5,000. A large provincial Roman city will have a population of 10,000 to 20,000. Nothing has changed in terms of the size of the industrial revolution. Most medieval cities had fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Even in major Italian Renaissance cities, rarely were more than 50,000. Today, there are 8 million residents in London, there are approximately 3 million people in Chicago, 2.5 million in Paris and even small Italian cities like Perugia have a population of 120,000.
These differences make the difference for much difference in the life of the city. Therefore, make a difference in social and political organizations too. Democracy in Greek city-states or Italian communism was contrary to modern democracy and was a delicate flower easily and often crushed. During the history of the city, it was very common to be under oligarchy or tyrannical rule.
Equally important to understanding the city is its economic base. There were fortified villages in many early cities where people were engaged in agriculture outside the walls. It did not last long. Since ancient times, the city has been a consumer of manufactured goods in the country. It gave its support to business or victory. A city was a place where money could be enjoyed free of pressure. Outside the city was brutal existence, was the forest, there was a struggle for survival and danger; Inside the city, there were orders, security, money and holidays to complete the finer things of life. This urban ideal can be a lot for only a few citizens, but it is a symbol of ideas that make the city a decent place.
This ideal of civilization, however, is with the modern concept of the city. The modern city is the forest, the urban forest. An inner city is a dangerous place where the struggle for existence dominates brutal existence. Any person with enough money leaves the public city for a private place, where there are safety, order and leisure enjoyment.
In so many ways, the modern city is not a city of pre-industrial past. The concept of population, social structure, political organization, economy, city and even the city are different. Above all, the citizen is a fundamentally different creature. In the understanding of modern aspirations and citizenship, there is a little similarity with any period in the past.
If it does not all define what a traditional city is, then it definitely defines what the modern city is not. It is not an ancient Greek, medieval or Renaissance town. We want to make it as part of any of these or in the form of amalgamation of these cities, but to do this, we should understand who will be in it and how they will remain.
What has happened to all those people who are no longer in our city centres? They live in the suburbs.
With the word “city”, we have to be cautious with the word “suburb”, which is originally referred to in the “suburban” place, – the power of the bill, or outside the city. As the population of cities has exploded in the past two centuries, and sometimes more people have spread in the suburbs, “suburban” means that there is a very different environment in their own way of life.
In Southern Europe, where intense patterns of living are acceptable, the suburbs have recently been built, irregular areas are not less dense than the city centres. Often this suburb is undesirable and dangerous and the city centre is desirable.
In northern Europe- and especially in the UK- and sharing an Anglo-Saxon heritage in the United States, Canada and other countries, there are areas with very low density of suburban home accommodation, each of which has its own. They cover large areas and sometimes, but not always, there is a hostel area for a city. More in Anglo-Saxon
Unlike the American world, in some parts of southern Europe, these suburbs are usually desirable and safe and the city centre is undesirable and unsafe.
In southern Europe, suburbs are often produced in population pressure. In the Anglo-Saxon world, they developed along with the railway travel and then the spread of the motorcar and were enthusiastically adopted.
The Anglo-Saxon suburb developed from a very clear set of ideas. It started in England, where the social pattern of urban life is the opposite of most other European countries. The ruling elite never actually took to live in the city, and consequently, on this day, the English culture has been defined by the city more than the country. The idea of being your home in the country is the best in the world, the founding principle of the Anglo-Saxon suburb. Better transport in the industrial revolution, uncontrolled migration of rural labourers in rural slums (which affected Britain more than ever), as well as a rapid increase in population and wealth, increased the number of people from the industrial age. Edition. Countryside – Suburb
In the United States, founding father (excluding Hamilton) inherited the English scene of the countryside. When this ideal was added to the zeal of the new world for the forest, the tradition of leading separatism, and the cult of the individual – and as the population grew towards historical cities, in the same way, the United States of America and the United States of America, Indiana Started in the state, to feel, for the whole city, for example, or Letchworth in Herefordshire – now is in line with the suburban model.
In a sense, both Anglo-Saxon and American suburbs have been a major success. Every home has a lot of its own, where one person or family can remain unaffected by the highest, unscrupulous acts of others. Suburban answers one of the great social responsibilities of the past two centuries – increasing demand for privacy
This demand of privacy through personal home design, large scale housing design and law can be traced. It extends from home to the child’s bedroom and the spread of the bathroom. It has been extended by private motor vehicles, telephones, television and now individual computers. In the UK, it is being expanded into laws on domestic noise and garden fire, and smoke (always ahead) in California and even on individual fragrances.
If we are building cities in the United States or Britain today, and if it is to be more than a minority practice, then we have to design for a citizen who is now suburban or at least is craving for suburban amenities- The level of privacy that the citizen will demand and any technical equipment for the unknown isolation for any citizen in history. We can no longer build on the classical model of civilization for the community. Suburban prices are the value of the middle class, where families and individuals take priority.
Therefore, we have an interesting dilemma, to build traditional cities, traditional modern cities. We will not do this until we think it is a good thing. We should think that the city can be a desirable place, and yet the city’s popular Anglo-Saxon and American concept includes a lot that is undesirable. We can only think that the city is desirable because we have an idea that is different from the way of modern cities. If the ideal is traditional and essentially historical, then we know that in many cases it will not fit with current realities.
If we want to blend the ideals of a traditional or historical city with the realities of modern life, then we should realize that we will not make the past again, but we will do something new. To do this, we have to first look at any surface what has happened to all those people who are no longer parallel in our city centres? They live in the suburbs.
Therefore, we have an interesting dilemma, to build traditional cities, traditional modern cities. We should not think that the city can be a desirable place, and yet there are many in the city’s popular Anglo-Saxon and American concepts which are unexpected. We can only think that the city is desirable because we are a modern city developed. If the ideal is traditional and essentially historical, then we know that in many cases it will not fit with current realities
If we have the desire to reconcile the idea of a traditional or historical city with the realities of modern life, then we should realize that we will not be real. To do this, we should be able to go first and desirable features. You have to see the historic city which is missing from the modern city and then looking for a mechanism to present them in a modern context.
There is a lot about the pre-industrial city which we would not want to recreate – the fifteenth-century architect Albertie tells us that the beautiful Siena was notorious for human stigma. There were diseases, barbaric law, elite and great rule, internal group battle, small law enforcement, the threat of war or all ancient ideologies. In all such historic cities, which is high, many facilities of a decent life are much higher today than any time in the past: communal care and disease, diverse and healthy diet, public utilities and personal, personal, public and private treatment Access to Transport and comfort
Despite these benefits, it is a common belief that something in the modern city is missing, which is a pre-industrial city. Due to increasing size, unimaginable building and unknowable pattern, and as a result of a separation, the search for personal privacy, city identity has declined and civil life and communal responsibilities have eroded.
If we want to improve our lives in the city, then it is such things that we should restore, but – and I can not emphasize it – if we try to make it again for centuries, then we will not do. , Then does not fit with significant changes. The traditional and historic city should be reconciled with modern life.
Reconciliation between past and present is often misunderstood.
Tradition is the bridge between our present realities and our past of ideas, although the use of tradition in this century is present in the context of the needs of the present, it is an accurate change that separates the present from the past – modernization current change – Traditions that make
To understand this, we need to see the tradition and to help us, I will tell the archaeologist that an archaeologist cannot be different from the traditional things. Evidence for tradition and custom is an indication of the pursuit of the same things or practices, which can not be explained simply by expansion, pragmatism or work, and can continue for many generations. For rituals and traditions, some archaeologists need to be up or above, they are the means of identifying a specific culture. They are essentially beyond work and will be formal, symbolic, obsolete or decorative.
To know that some custom or traditional custom is custom and unconscious, while tradition is conscious and deliberate. Traditions are often accompanied by consciously preserved customs.
When circumstances or social structures change, customary practices are at risk of extinction. This danger makes people aware of their cultural identity. If customs are conscious, then they become traditions
If there are such changes which are actually a threat to cultural continuity, then existing traditions often become strong or modified, and new traditions deliberately preserve the customs duty by expanding existing duties, or the inventions of new things are completely old Are. The objective is to be preserved in a cultural group. This is the means by which society maintains its identity in front of a change.
Tradition, then, is not only a product of change, but it also does not leave the modern life tradition. In fact, we are facing great changes
Tradition is the way in which we can pursue that cultural identity, which we find in the modern city without ruining people like ancient Athenian or Renaissance Florentine. It does not matter that the traditions we believe (or inventions) are fair, they can not be completely authentic. To suggest tradition, cultural continuity, history should be suggested. No use of history, in any logical sense, cannot be authentic. Tradition is to represent history with faith, and it is to create a sense of continuity with a history which can be real. If the call of our tradition is completely hypothetical – if it is not conscious of practice or re-practice, then it should apply at least a hypothetical past that appears to be in line with known history.
All these plus are quite common in traditional architecture. Taking inspiration from the ancient sources, after the Greeks and Romans of classical architecture, has always been reliant on a deliberate relationship with the past for its identity. This past can be portrayed to a great extent by looking at ancient times of buildings. But the literal call of the past is usually contained in the layers of myths and the imaginary ideas of antiquity. The entire foundation of the Gothic revival in the nineteenth century relied on romantic and excessive misconceptions about the architecture of the Middle Ages: it was made by anonymous masonry and inspired by the northern forests, declines in popular history still continue. With all the architectural, classical and Gothic buildings respond to contemporary works, but unlike modernist architecture, they are overlapping with symbols, decorations and formal arrangements that are conscious of real and imaginary traditions.
These are the reasons which are not reactionary, but there are many things that are relevant to the needs of architects to see historical cities, which are relevant to our culture and use those select characteristics in the most effective form. Can create. The spirit of tradition is not extra work for these facilities; With all traditions, they are more likely to be formal, symbolic or decorative. Neither, as the history of tradition displays, there is no need for truth in communal identity.
This building will start on our design for a new district in a small rural town of Shelton Mallet in western England this year. There will be 360 new homes, a school, a public hall and a shop in development. The new district has been designed like the historic villages of this area, with its pants, stones and plaster and their curved lanes. These ancient villages are famous for their public greens, which still serve as a symbolic centre. Originally for rural livestock, these informally open grass fields are organized from festivals, meetings and even from places of execution since ancient times. In our design a new village from the public areas is green. It does not have any history like the new district. But people will recognize the tradition of the region, and use the space in a traditional way (except hope, hopefully). Green will pay attention to new districts and an identity.
While politicians deal with wider social and economic issues, we have the means to provide real, solid citizen identity to villages, towns, cities and districts. And the local identity we create through a different pattern of construction which draws on history to create traditions is a condition for the restoration of any civil life and communal responsibility.