‘Post-Fire London was a magnificent, beautiful compromise’
apollo-magazine.com
apollo-magazine.com
> Cities are fragile things. They can burn: Rome in 64 AD (possibly thanks to the Emperor Nero); Constantinople in 1203 (courtesy of the Fourth Crusade); Lisbon in 1755 (because of the earthquake); Moscow in 1812 (thanks to Napoleon); Hamburg in 1842; Chicago in 1871; San Francisco in 1906… But in terms of devastation, few urban conflagrations can compare with the Great Fire of London, whose 350th anniversary is being marked this year.
How about the fire-bombing of Tokyo and nearly all other major Japanese cities during WWII? The fire-bombing of Tokyo is considered the greatest urban conflagration in history with the US Strategic Bombing Survey conservatively estimating one million homes destroyed. Or the fire in Tokyo after the Great Kantō earthquake in 1923? Or, contemporaneous with the event described, the Great Fire of Meireki in 1657, which destroyed 60-70% of Tokyo and is estimated to have claimed 100,000 lives. [1]
The article is chock-full of sophistry, and the lead-in just sets up the mindset.
What will kill a city, though, and rapidly, is a loss of economic foundations. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Manchester, St. Louis, Flint, Youngstown, Scranton, Dayton, ....
But that's more a case of the fire going out.
Whilst the "winding streets" and "character" of London's awful road layout may be romantic for visiting tourists, it has resulted in a city needlessly choked with traffic, that feels cramped and claustrophobic compared to Europe's great capitals. Some of London's most famous streets are heavily polluted by noisy dirty standing traffic, and give little room for pedestrian movement.
The district around St Pauls feels so anonymous and cramped, in a way that affects so much of London. London cries out for open squares, wider pavements and pedestrianised areas. You need only visit Trafalgar Square (which itself could use a redesign) to see how many people the few open spaces that exist in London attract.
It's not a beautiful compromise, it's a failure to manage, it's a failure of vision and ambition.
The winding streets slow traffic down, making it safer to cycle around when compared to the fast and wide roads of New York. They also block wind meaning we don't get driving rain along straight avenues.
The lack of large squares and piazzas reduces the distance you have to walk between places, which is very important in a damp environment. It takes ages to get anywhere on foot in Mexico City for example whereas you can walk all the way across central London in a couple of hours. I routinely walk to meetings around the city and it rarely takes more than 20 minutes.
Rather than try and spread the city out planners are working on removing the cars and lorries. New pollution taxes, electric and autonomous vehicles, and pedestrianization of key roads like Oxford Street, are all going to work really well in the London model of a dense core whereas they won't add nearly as much to a city which is more spread out.
I think the way to provide safe cycling is not to slow the traffic down, but to separate cyclists and cars.
I looked for stats. Death rates in NYC and London are similar, but I couldn't find much comparable data on the number of cyclists or usage.
> They also block wind meaning we don't get driving rain along straight avenues.
That's a fair point, but presumably having well-designed streets still allows for this, e.g. by staggering roads?
I agree that electric vehicles will greatly reduce pollution, you'll still be walking through dense standing traffic in many areas.
There are a few cities around the world experimenting with closed-box neighbourhoods: blocks of buildings with restricted through-traffic and low speed limits (or no cars allowed at all). These encourage pedestrian usage, people actually spending time on the street (outdoor cafes are ruined by car exhaust).
The way to solve the issue of traffic is to remove cars from the road, not to transform your cities into places aimed specifically at cars.
Having a city that is not so poorly designed that it is crammed with traffic, and having pedestrianised areas are not mutually exclusive concepts.
> The way to solve the issue of traffic is to remove cars from the road, not to transform your cities into places aimed specifically at cars.
If you don't have well-designed roads, it is difficult to provide good pedestrianised areas, because you simply don't have space. The grid system devotes far more space to cars and pedestrian walkways by design, which enables you to have squares and pedestrian areas if you so wish.
It's not about designing around the car, it's about having some idea of design, rather than assuming a laissez-faire approach is a good idea.
Screw tourists. I love taking a slightly different winding road to the same place I normally walk to, and seeing some slightly off kilter building or weird little park or set of shops.
There are traffic/noise/pollution problems, but that's something you'll see walking along main roads rather than the interesting bits. More pedestrianisation would be good I'm sure - but if you want huge open space we've got lots of parks...
Agreed, London has plenty of park space. I was referring more to the claustrophobic nature of the busy roads with narrow pavements, e.g. Oxford Street.