Planning of Germania

A work of Twisted Aesthetics (by Haoyan Wu)

 
As an extreme paradigm of nationalism and socialism, Nazi Fascism, had promoted absolute centralised ruling across the Europe, aka totalitarianism. As a matter of fact, the successful invading and occupying had further satisfied and stimulated Nazi German’s burning ambition. The demand of constructing and rebuilding on urban environments had also come with it. These kind of projects and engineering could hardly escape a destiny of being combined with certain ideology. Symbolic architectures and places concept over the very time, such as the Volkshalle, Deutsches Stadion and to a large scale, the Arch, and Germania was not accomplished in fact, while the tremendous design is not just a different scale of aesthetics, but also reveals the political advocation of “obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity.” (Paxton, 2004)

As a totalitarianism, the dictator always plays a dominant role of defining and planning the nation’s fortune, same as Hitler. During his early age, he was devoting in arts and architecture study. He was even once managing in going to Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. It is assumable if he was enrolled, the world could possibly escape the disaster of a massive killer. The failure of further excursion in arts study did not let Hitler give up his interest. He was getting embarked on his design of architecture and city combining his political attitude and unique aesthetic comprehension. He had not been satisfactory with Berlin’s scale before he took the reconstructing into practice, he thought Berlin as his proud German’s capital, was too small to accomplish displaying its strength and dominant power. This idea has influenced into details of Hitler’s ideal urban form and architecture designing.

It is quite important to mention a person when we talk about Fascism planning, Albert Speer, the Minister of Armaments and War Production for the Third Reich and the chief architect of Adolf Hitler. The architect born in an architect family was appealed to Hitler’s speech and decided in devoting in the constructing of a new rising power for his Nazi Germany. The similar taste of aesthetics has drawn Hitler’s attention into this artist, they have been sharing ideas and designs since then.

Hitler thought strong visual impact can appeal people’s passion into a political campaign, but this feature was not satisfied by the old Reich Chancellery. He thought it was with “no dignity”and was just like a “cigar case”.

When he became the prime minister of German on 30 of January, 1933, he was taking the transformation of Reich Chancellery as the most vital project, as an entree on building the world’s capital, Germania.

Before Speer taking office of the chief planner of the Third Reich, Hitler has pointed to him precisely, Berlin would become the centre and capital of the world. He was insisting on stretching the width of road to 120 m as a central avenue, while this plan was objected by the mayor of Berlin at that time, with concerns of preserving the existing buildings by the road. It resulted in dismiss to the mayor.As the symbolic architecture of “Germania”, Hitler has started on designing Volksshalle in 1925 before he gained power. On the blueprint of it, we can obviously see it was adapted from Peterdom and Pantheon.

In 1940, when France surrounded to Nazi Germany, Hitler led a group of architects including Speer to Paris visiting the gorgeous historical sites. Hitler once noticed visiting Paris was his “dream of life”, when the dream came true, as he said to Speer on the way back to Berlin, he had admired the beauty of Paris, while he will make Berlin a more gorgeous and splendid place. He had officially proposed his nomination of the world’s capital, Germania.

Before 1940, Hitler’s plan on reforming Berlin was still a vague and major view, it just let Speer get a chance in planning a new Berlin which follow the strain. With being provided with privilege directed from Hitler, Speer could propose his demand to almost any department in Berlin or even to the Reich government. In the following few years, Berlin had not just developed upon the major plan of Hitler, but also in detailed planning such as business centre, residential area and transportation facilities.

The 145-metre-long gallery in the new Reich Chancellery drove Hitler to wild joy, it was twice long than the gallery in Palace of Versailles. Hitler had a description as this, the long journey from the gate to the hall can bring adequate impression of greatness and power of the Reich to make them afraid of. The “them” in his mouth could be anyone disobey his order. He took the empire built under his power as a shelter and weapon servicing his own.

Nazi Germany on one hand was a Germanised State Socialism, violence was the fountain, on another hand it is Fascism. The unique and wretched aesthetic taste of the very ideology was not any more just a speech regarding to arts taste. Planning under this special state had an unstoppable appetite in swallowing the entire world into the minor dictator’s stomach to satisfy his ambition. This dictatorship asked for high-unity in order to ruling and invading but leave a pair of blind eyes to a natural development consolidating with people’s wish and pursue.

 

 

Bibliography

Paxton, R. (2004). The anatomy of fascism. New York: Knopf.

Jeffery M. Diefendorf. (1993). ‘Town planning to 1945’ in In the Wake of War: the Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II New York, Oxford.

20th century planning under communism (by Natasha Fonte De Vos)

Urban planning under communism, particularly in Soviet Russia, in my opinion was not given a proper chance to come to fruition. Communism is an idealistic concept that in theory appeals to social-minded individuals, however in practice awarded incredible power to very few, who tended to abuse it. The initial break from capitalist and ‘western’ views of living situations gave creatives and intellectuals the freedom to redesign the very world they lived in, and some of the centuries most inspiring and imaginative works came from this time (Curtis, 1996). However, change could not wait for technology to keep up with the fantastical city concepts coming from Soviet architects and planners, the reality was that there was a very large population living in cities already built who required urgent attention. French (1995) states that Stalin’s 5 year plans brought immediate wealth to the state at the loss of opportunities for the Soviet union to truly ‘start again’ with Urban planning under Communism. The main challenges facing Soviet designers were the impact of growth and change on urbanism, inequalities of living conditions, particularly in rural areas and the erasure of social expectations surrounding housing and the family unit.

The importance given to the growth and change of urbanism is a concept that had already been examined in the West, however the complete upheaval of social and economic dynamics such as that experienced by the USSR post revolution facilitated an opportunity to put variations of these ideas into practice. The concept of a lineal city was explored by Soria y Mata, who thought to replace the traditional city centre with linearly expanding sections of infrastructure servicing the entire length of the ‘city’, effectively preventing sprawl and inefficient destruction of the environment. While the lineal city in theory deals with growth effectively, Vladimir Milyutin is credited with combining this capacity for growth with land use zoning made popular at the time by Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement. Milyutin’s scheme envisioned 6 parallel zones in ribbon development, which would span just a few hundred meters wide and expand in length only (French, 1995). This theory was to be put into practice with a new socialist development, which was to facilitate a discovery of iron in the town of Magnitogorsk. Ernst May was commissioned to plan an ideal socialist “city” around this natural resource. With reference to Milyutin’s scheme, May designed an intricately planned out lineal city consisting of a strip of factories and industrial plants parallel to another strip of mikrorayons (an all inclusive “superblock” of communal housing towers and shared facilities,) separated by a green belt (Risebero, 1985). Proletariats would live and work in alignment, minimising travel time. The plan indicated that the housing strip would be upwind of the industry strip, thus eliminating toxic fume concerns. Unbeknown to May, development could not wait for the fine-tuning of his plan for Magnitogorsk. Stalin had already implemented the 5 year plan and the pressure was on to complete the mining infrastructure as soon as possible without consulting May’s plan. With industry giants sprawling across land May had envisioned the housing strip to be, he had to compromise and they were built on the other side, downwind of the factories (French, 1995). These were far from perfect conditions for a lineal city and most housing was subject to fumes from the factories. In spite of this, the proletarians worked long and hard, and the city produced a phenomenal revenue for the state, and Magnitogorsk was deemed a success.

Nikolai Milyutin’s plan for the Linear City

Residential zones (А) and industrial zones (Б) share a green band. Railroad tracks run along the industrial zone.
 
It can be said that the communist revolution was sparked by the inequalities of living conditions between rural and urban areas. In The German Ideology (1965) Karl Marx is quoted as stating that “the antagonism between town and country which creates the division of the population into two great classes which can only exist as a result of private property.” The socialist revolutionaries initially saw communism as an end to the inequalities faced by people living sub par conditions. When all land was nationalised in 1918, urban property was taken into the hands of the state, including large dwellings of the wealthy, and subdivided among the proletariats (French, 1995). This brought immediate resolution to the cramped living situations faced by many. Private ownership of land more often then not impeded in productive development in urban areas. The Moscow underground railway network could be planned and built due to the complete control of the state (Risebero, 1985). The technology and infrastructure used by early soviet developers was the best of its time, it was built by proletariats and was seen as a success for communism. Unfortunately, once Stalin gained power over the USSR the state purpose shifted from standardised quality of life and living conditions, to increased economic and industrial power for the country, at the cost of individual quality of life. The population growth due to the successful industrialisation of Russia put a strain on the farmers who, like the urban dwellers, were stripped of private land and forced into collective farming (Hubbard, 39). There was a conscious unrest amongst farmers, as their promise of a better life was far from actualised. Those who resisted openly were reprimanded and the violence between the peasants and the soviets lasted years. The deaths due to starvation and executions during this period were estimated at approximately 10 million people (Hubbard, 1939).

 To standardise living conditions in urban areas, as mentioned, properties were taken by the state and redistributed among proletariats. There was also a necessity to build new housing for the vast urban and rural population. The erasure of social expectations surrounding living arrangements gave architects and planners a unique opportunity to redesign the very framework of how people lived. Mass housing was envisioned across the countryside, consisting of blocks with thousands of individual units for proletariats to sleep and store personal items (French, 1995). The idea was that each block would have sufficient shared amenities such as laundry, kitchen, bathrooms and eating halls. State funded facilities would give all the workers, children and the elderly an equal opportunity to access healthcare, education and recreation. This concept of communal living required an abolishment of the family unit, freeing women from the constraints of domestic duties and giving every child an opportunity for education, ensuring that every proletariat had the best chances to perform efficiently (Curtis, 1996). This model was used for many housing communes that were built in Soviet Russia. It is fair to say that the concept was born out of true socialist values, standardising living conditions and eradicating inequalities between classes of people. Understandably, this is a working system that depends on state funding and the complete support of every individual. This was not the case for the most part and it is said to be an uncomfortable experience living in such close proximity to one another. This led to spying on neighbours and informing to the controlling police that someone may secretly disagree with the Soviet state (Risebero, 1985). There were dire consequences and people lived in fear.  

 

Imaginative design for Soviet housing commune - Narkomtiazhprom, Vesnin brothers, 1934 

 

There were many factors in the perceived failures of socialist planning, however fault is rarely found with the concepts themselves. The planning and design of this time inspired the whole world, it was unfortunate that these great thinkers were given little opportunity to see their work completed, and their idealistic concepts tied to a regime that ultimately crippled the nation.

 

REFERENCES

Curtis, W. (1996). The crystallization of modern Architecture between the wars. In, Modern Architecture since 1900 (201-215). London: Phaidon Press Limited.

French, A. (1995). The city of Socialist Man. In, Pragmatism and People: the legacy of soviet planning for today’s cities (29-49). London: UCL Press.

Hubbard, Leonard E. (1939). The Economics of Soviet Agriculture. Macmillan and Co. pp. 117–18

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1965). The German Ideology (p. 78). London.

Risebero, Bill. (1985). Modern architecture and design: an alternative history. MIT Press. pp. 162-213

 

 

A metropolis for the 20th century (by Xiao Wen Lu)

 

Canberra has been demonstrated as the most significant products in the world of the 20^th century. It becomes the capital city of Australia instead of Melbourne and Sydney. Why Canberra can defeat Melbourne and Sydney become the capital city of Australia? What should a capital city have and how to involve people’s thought into the plan? Why Canberra is not as famous as Melbourne and Sydney? From those aspects I will then introduce my thoughts of Canberra as a capital city.

The process of Canberra been a federal capital has been through three stages, respectively, a “battle of ideas”, a “battle of sites” and a “battle of plans”. As we know Melbourne and Sydney are well known by the others rather than Canberra. Melbourne is the oldest city of Australia, its history and culture can become the significant feature to form a capital city. Sydney is the largest city at that time, most of the business trades are taking place in that area, and if we set Sydney as the capital city it may increase the economic income of Australia. Either choose Melbourne or Sydney will result in unfair choice to another. Similar to China, Beijing is the capital city, it has been considered as the oldest city like Melbourne with long history and culture. Apart from it, Shanghai is the financial centre of China like Sydney. The argument of shifting the capital city from Beijing to shanghai has been discussed many times, the people who lives in Shanghai would more prefer their own city to be the federal capital. So in this stage it is hard to balance the requirements of the two great cities. Where Australia decide to choose Canberra as the capital city can well balance the importance of both Melbourne and Sydney. Canberra is a new city, it can be easily shaped and constructed. “The predominant flavour was the need to aspire to a better urban environment than that offered by existing cities” (Freestone, 1997). So Canberra is a good choice to be the federal capital, especially it is in between of Melbourne and Sydney.

 

  Figure 1

So what should a capital city involved? “The federal capital should be a beautiful city, occupying a commanding position, with extensive views, and embracing distinctive features which will lend themselves to the evolution of a design worthy of the object, not only for the present, but for all time.” (as cited in Freestone, 1997). The requirement to form a capital city for Australia needs to have special structure, such as fountains, constructive buildings or unusual landmark which can impressed others. In my opinion, when someone mention a city and we can easily figure out it is the capital city and know about the significant feature of this place then the design of the capital city is successful. A city like Melbourne describe by Luffmann as “no view point, no internal spaces, no dignity, no power of revealing what we are or whence we came, or the significance of our every day life” (as cited in Freestone, 1997). The same as Sydney, “narrow streets, badly laid out” (as cited in Freestone, 1997) will not be suitable to be the federal capital. A capital city should be a city that we are proud of, not shame about it. Apart from its physical view, the transportation is also an important figure in planning a federal capital. A well-organized transportation system can improve people’s life quality and decrease the CO2 emission of using private vehicle so that to form a more sustainable federal capital.

 

Figure 2

In some way federal capital should be the famous city of one country. For example the capital city of England is London where is well known by its history and landmarks when people talk about England they will easily refer to London. Same as Paris, the capital of France, Eiffel Tower is the significant feature of it. Why Canberra is being well plan but is not as famous as Melbourne and Sydney, and less known overseas. Different from England and France, when we talk about Australia, the first city come to mind is either Melbourne or Sydney. It may relates to Canberra’s less history or lack of significant landmark. Furthermore, the plan in Canberra is not as good as other federal capital. Transportation will be considered as important feature to attract more people to visit this place. But there is only one public transportation in Canberra which is bus. Unlike Melbourne and Sydney, it has train, tram and bus. The inconvenience of transport within different suburb can make people concern of coming to this area. From the previous paragraph, it said a federal capital needs to have individual landmark. Although Canberra has been well planned, the landmark is not as significant. It is hard for people to think of a famous structure or special place like the Great Wall in Beijing and the Berlin wall in Berlin.

Figure 3

To form a better and well known federal capital, it is necessary to improve the transportation in order to attract more people. As Haefele as argued “while the international design competition can be seen as a beginning for Canberra, it was also a culmination…of thinking about the way Australia could create the ideal city” (Haefele, 1995).

 

 

Reference:

Mark Henry Haefele, “ideal visions of Canberra”, MA thesis, Australian National University, 1995, p. 32

R. Freestone. The federal capital of Australia: A virtual planning history Canberra, Urban Research Program, 1997 pp.2-30

Haussman, Sitte and streetscapes (by Haoyu Liu)

 

‘The transformation of the rues renovate the dilapidation and mess, but it, in the meanwhile, destroy the districts which could reflect Paris culture and the civil societies.’

 

Today, people praise Haussman for his contribution to the complete new look of Paris. They enjoy the boulevards, neat street, magnificent architectures and give most of the credit to the ‘Haussmannization’. However, it seems most people forgot the cost of that huge renovation, the dark side of that project. But it is the dark side of that reconstruction that should be remembered and become cautionary to the contemporary urban modernization process.

 

Haussmann started his tenure after the Napoleon III became the emperor of the Second Empire (Van Zanten, 1994). Napoleon appointed Haussmann to rebuild old shabby Paris which was formed from medieval time. From Haussmann assumed office in 1853 to his ouster in 1870, it is the period which is known as ‘the period of Haussmannization’. Haussmann planned the new Paris on imperial orders, he paid attention to the geometrical ideas but abandoned humanistic spirit. He divide the new Paris into 20 arrondissements, rebuild the roads through the principles of perfectly straight and exceeding board. This transformation renovate the dilapidation and mess, but it, in the meanwhile, destroy old Paris and in place of its beauty and charm imposed dull uniformity and its civil societies (Jordan, D. P., 1992). Haussmann beautified and purified Paris, he built up new large squares, theatres, monuments, railway stations and government buildings in neo-classicism style. He also renewed sewer and water supply systems comprehensively. But another side of this beautification has always been ignored, Haussmann has expelled and demolished the residents their dwellings in Paris, and built up new, fancy but expensive housings which they could not afford to live (Nichols, 2015). His transformation to Paris was somehow based on the sacrifice of the lower societies.

 

 

Napoleon III and Haussmann’s project progressed smoothly was because nothing but the citizens’ desire of rebuilding Paris. However, Napoleon was not trying to ‘transform’ Paris, he was trying to rebuild Paris after demolish it. Many architectures with high historical values has been demolished, civil societies based on commune has been destroyed. All the old parts of the city were all ready to be destroyed in order to build new squares and municipal facilities.

 

Due to their reckless transformation to Paris, they have used much more money that the empire could afford at that time. Haussmann wrote in one of his memoires that they planned to use about 2.5 billion franc during 1851 to 1869. But the actual number was far more than their plan. They have put heavy debts to their empire and even the successive French Third Republic needed to dispose those debts.

The Haussmann's renovation of Paris is a successful but unsuccessful precedent of urban modernization. He excessively encouraged materialism and utilitarianism but forgot about humanity. Overall, his project was using Instrumental Reason to destroy the humanist rationality on the behalf of urban modernism. And this is one of the reasons that he did not success at last.

 

Camillo Sitte, an influential Austrian city planner, was well known as the founder of romantic "picturesque" urbanism (Moravánszky, 2006). Sitte paid a lot attention on the aesthetics of the urban space rather than the aesthetic of a single architecture. His famous book City Planning According to Artistic Principles (1965) has demonstrated his rethinking about the 19^th century’s end urbanism. He studied the urban spaces where the citizens loved, and he found out they did not to be the grand palaces or large-scale squares. What citizens loved is the well-proportioned, corresponding, picturesque urban spaces. Therefore, he proposed a free design, a city where architectures were distributed harmoniously, a space where surrounded by squares and streets. Therefore, many of the Sitte’s city planning are highly irregular and informal but they still made people appreciate the beauty of the city.

 

 

Sitte’s plan ideas were exactly the opposite of Haussmann’s, he was the first person analyze urban planning through the aspects of space and humanity. He has left the later generations profound influence on the pursuing of cultural and arrangement of space.

 

  

However, Sitte is not perfect likewise. His extreme praise of the medieval narrow, winding space led him neglected the hygiene and ventilation issues. He, somehow, simply treated urban planning as an artistic matter. This view was obviously lack of objectivity and practicability. Even so, his ideas were still considered as the ‘textbook’ of urban planning. His values about the harmonious humanistic spirit contained in the harmonious space was worth spreading. His ideas worth great value to the contemporary city planner and help to remind them to be sane during the process of urban modernism.

 

 

References:

 

Moravánszky, Á. (2006). Camillo Sitte: Romantic or Realist? the Picturesque City Reconsidered. East Central Europe, 33(1), 293-308. doi:10.1163/187633006x00141

 

Nichols, D. (2015). Haussmann, Sitte and Streetscapes. Speech, University of Melbourne.

 

Jordan, D. P. (1992). Baron Haussmann and modern Paris. American Scholar, 61(1), 99.

 

Sitte, C. (1965). City planning according to artistic principles. New York: Random House.

 

Van Zanten, D. (1994). Building Paris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.