Modernist Relationships: MARS, CIAM
Modernist Relationships: MARS, CIAM
Gold, J 2000, ‘Towards the functional city? MARS, CIAM and the London plans, 1933-42’, in The Modern City Revisited, ed. Deckker, T, Spon Press, London, pp 80-99
Gold refers to the creation of the Modern Architectural Research Group or ‘MARS’ and its relation to CIAM as the English architectural delegation. After interest regarding an initial research scheme compromised of 9 plans and some written material presented at CIAM IV, a congregation of 33 nations aboard an 8 day journey to Athens, MARS retired to London to research the development of a new central mega city.
Unveiled in 1942 the plan, that consisted of linear street layouts with heavy reliance on public transport, segregation of industry and living, creation of residential, neighbourhoods, boroughs, and city districts; also the availability of not being restrained by the concentric green wedge by allowing farmland to penetrate close to the heart of London, the plan was rejected as deluded and impossible.
Despite this there has been some relaxation of its criticism when the plan is seen as a theoretical design exercise used for debate. Considering its creation during war time and the fact that much of the planning and information was lost due to bomb damage, refuelling the international architectural community with planning schema had its advantages.
There can be no argument that the scheme did not follow charters and sanctions set forth by CIAM IV as these were never created supposedly due to logistics and resource problems; however one should not judge the programme without insight into some of the insightful things it was concerned with.
Although early on two of the major contributors of the scheme felt that railway transit was out dated and a throwback to the era past, in modern times cities are trying to increase the amount of public transport in highly congested areas. In the case of London itself the reconstruction from the last war did no allow for the massive growth in private traffic and as such there is now a toll for using the CBD of London itself. Had there been a greater emphasis on the high speed corridors MARS proposed, linked with the emphasis on public transport – as misconstrued and frivolous as they were – the problem of commuting in central London these days may have been avoided.
Although large modernist apartment complexes are contested these days as being repetitious and stagnant, one cannot argue that Ling, one of the original designers, in his ideal had created both apartment complexes and had also included ‘cottages’ with personal garden space. Something forgotten in the final output as noted by fry “It was far too much biased in favour of flats. Quite simply we weren’t looking any further.” Although Gold does note that Ling in his scheme was asked to remove his lower density housing in an effort to ease the drafting needed.
It is easy to criticise these urban developments; however in contemporary times we often see large infrastructural projects that forget to include some of their more poignant lessons, such as ease of use, hierarchy and communication or transit availability. Should some of the government planning bodies and private developers deign to look upon these dusty plans, perhaps suburbs of the 21st century could be enlightened to the greater needs of the general public.
Gold, J 2000, ‘Towards the functional city? MARS, CIAM and the London plans, 1933-42’, in The Modern City Revisited, ed. Deckker, T, Spon Press, London, pp 80-99
Gold refers to the creation of the Modern Architectural Research Group or ‘MARS’ and its relation to CIAM as the English architectural delegation. After interest regarding an initial research scheme compromised of 9 plans and some written material presented at CIAM IV, a congregation of 33 nations aboard an 8 day journey to Athens, MARS retired to London to research the development of a new central mega city.
Unveiled in 1942 the plan, that consisted of linear street layouts with heavy reliance on public transport, segregation of industry and living, creation of residential, neighbourhoods, boroughs, and city districts; also the availability of not being restrained by the concentric green wedge by allowing farmland to penetrate close to the heart of London, the plan was rejected as deluded and impossible.
Despite this there has been some relaxation of its criticism when the plan is seen as a theoretical design exercise used for debate. Considering its creation during war time and the fact that much of the planning and information was lost due to bomb damage, refuelling the international architectural community with planning schema had its advantages.
There can be no argument that the scheme did not follow charters and sanctions set forth by CIAM IV as these were never created supposedly due to logistics and resource problems; however one should not judge the programme without insight into some of the insightful things it was concerned with.
Although early on two of the major contributors of the scheme felt that railway transit was out dated and a throwback to the era past, in modern times cities are trying to increase the amount of public transport in highly congested areas. In the case of London itself the reconstruction from the last war did no allow for the massive growth in private traffic and as such there is now a toll for using the CBD of London itself. Had there been a greater emphasis on the high speed corridors MARS proposed, linked with the emphasis on public transport – as misconstrued and frivolous as they were – the problem of commuting in central London these days may have been avoided.
Although large modernist apartment complexes are contested these days as being repetitious and stagnant, one cannot argue that Ling, one of the original designers, in his ideal had created both apartment complexes and had also included ‘cottages’ with personal garden space. Something forgotten in the final output as noted by fry “It was far too much biased in favour of flats. Quite simply we weren’t looking any further.” Although Gold does note that Ling in his scheme was asked to remove his lower density housing in an effort to ease the drafting needed.
It is easy to criticise these urban developments; however in contemporary times we often see large infrastructural projects that forget to include some of their more poignant lessons, such as ease of use, hierarchy and communication or transit availability. Should some of the government planning bodies and private developers deign to look upon these dusty plans, perhaps suburbs of the 21st century could be enlightened to the greater needs of the general public.
Comments
Post a Comment