"The removal and replacement of deteriorated parts of the city is always a painful process. (Haussman’s beautification of Paris had been bought at great human cost, as had Sixtus V’s reconstruction of Rome.) It is never easy to identify “the slums”, since physical deterioration of neighbourhoods is never consistent. In any case, what appears as eyesore to some is home to others. Inevitably, people are displaced, everyday life is disrupted, and neighbourhoods are thrown into disarray. Inevitably, too, greed corrupts the political process and the wrecker’s ball- a crude instrument under the best of circumstances- is swung with casual recklessness. Such a destructive process finds its only excuse-if any excuse if possible- in the quality of the results. Only an extremely successful end justifies the means."
"The postwar notion of progress and technological improvement suggested that cities should be modernized, a notion that in itself was not the problem. The problem was that this period coincided with a time when urbanism and architecture were in the grips of planning theories that, in hindsight, were profoundly mistaken about the nature of cities and of urban life. The core of this misunderstanding was the assumption that old ways of building cities should be supplanted by twentieth century so-called modern urbanism. Modern urbanism meant abandoning the traditional street layout wherever possible, and in the name of separating drivers and walkers, replacing sidewalks with pedestrian malls and underground or elevated walkways."
"Buildings no longer lined streets in the time tested manner, but stood free in plazas. Streets were merely for transportation- the faster the traffic mover, the better. Above all, these modern improvements defined themselves by their isolation from the rest of the city, not only by the style of their architecture, which was aggressively and uncompromisingly modern, but also by their size, which was huge."
"The postwar notion of progress and technological improvement suggested that cities should be modernized, a notion that in itself was not the problem. The problem was that this period coincided with a time when urbanism and architecture were in the grips of planning theories that, in hindsight, were profoundly mistaken about the nature of cities and of urban life. The core of this misunderstanding was the assumption that old ways of building cities should be supplanted by twentieth century so-called modern urbanism. Modern urbanism meant abandoning the traditional street layout wherever possible, and in the name of separating drivers and walkers, replacing sidewalks with pedestrian malls and underground or elevated walkways."
"Buildings no longer lined streets in the time tested manner, but stood free in plazas. Streets were merely for transportation- the faster the traffic mover, the better. Above all, these modern improvements defined themselves by their isolation from the rest of the city, not only by the style of their architecture, which was aggressively and uncompromisingly modern, but also by their size, which was huge."
- (Excerpted from Rybczynski, Witold. City Life. Chapter 7 High Hopes, pgs 161-162. (1996) Simon& Schuster)
Written just a little over a decade ago about American cities, the words almost seem prophetic towards events that have been happening in and around many Indian cities.
Almost the story of Mumbai post 1970.
High Hopes is also a song by Pink Floyd.
No comments:
Post a Comment