High Modernism In Urban Architecture
High modernism is an international movement that emerged in the 19th/20th century. The movement was most prevalent during the Cold War. The high modernist movement is where society is governed by the states, especially through urban planning, monopolies and architecture. In high modernism there is a desire for legibility of places, boundaries and most importantly people.
Simplification and rationalization of the states is the driving force of high modernism. There is a focus on scientific and technical progress to reorder the natural and social world. Architecture takes on the universal (international) style. Diversity is deemed as complex and unmanageable. The state categorizes people as “citizens” or “non-citizens”. Instead of celebrating diversity it is seen as complicated, therefore something to be simplified. The structure of the state is demised through a simplifying lens in order to manage the complexity in society. It is seen as creating a greater efficiency of movement. High modernism appeals the most to those who have the most to gain, such as those with high status, wealth and power. Elites who gain from this ideology are those who push for this ideology.
In “Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed” by James C. Scott, he argues that there is a failure of planning in modernist cities and that it is a result of “scientism” and the city planners hubris. State simplifications have been practiced in forests. The “best” parts of the forest were taken out and placed in a different location. They were contained with hopes of a greater, more efficient forest but it did not end up working out. All of the “best” parts of the forest died and it was a huge failure. He also argues how there are certain policies in place that are used to get the most out of people. Whether that may be monetary, education or healthcare. Although a politician might explain a reason for why they are doing something and make it seem as though it is to benefit the working class it always goes back to money based reasons. The goal of the state and the bureaucrats is making the most money. He critiques the social engineering as a disaster.
High modernist ideology puts all of its confidence on science improving every part of human life which ultimately leads to a planning disaster. Authoritarian state power effects interventions that ultimately affect the working class rather than the elite class, although the elite class is who is calling the shots. The role of the state is to maximize productivity of the workers. Taylorism attempts to create more efficient workers, this is ultimately used as a tool to coerce workers to produce at a faster rate of time. The system is continuously exploiting and manipulating workers with the purpose of using them in the most efficient ways. Scott highlights all the negative aspects of productivism. It is the main reason as to why the working class is being exploited and manipulated. The idea that more production is good takes a toll on the lives of the workers. Rather than spending time with their families, workers have to spend more time producing, although they are not directly benefitting from their own efforts. This is all done to feed the consumerists ideals of the elite class.
The working class is the source of majority all monetary fiscal resources and this is all that they are seen as. James Holston in “The Modernist City: An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia” expresses how Brasilia was a lab for high modernism in the 1950s when it was planned from the ground up. The intention was to launch a great civilization. There were four main objectives for city planning, which included: housing, work, recreation and traffic. There is a designated street called the “rua” which is a place where people go if they want to be seen. Although Brasilienses do not use the word “rua” to describe this street, it is commonly referred to as the outdoor living room. The “rua” is a main geographic urban feature. This place does not have to be used for anything in particular, one can go to simply hang out or do activities. This is the domain of public life. The death of the streets made socializing more intentional. By eliminating the streets there are no street corners which at a point in time were “points of sociality”. The superquadra is the city’s basic residential unit. Since one cannot simply go outside and socialize this forces people to stay in their apartments. Through these planning functions it led to an elimination of urban crowds. Brasilia is not a street based society. The streets are a continuous void while buildings are sculptural figures. By getting rid of the corridor streets it was thought that it would redefine the function of traffic. This allows for the uninterrupted flow of traffic in both residential and central areas. The oversimplification of architecture led to it being illegible. How people move through a space is an intellectual thing therefore deciphering a figure vs. a void can get complicated in a high modernist city.
In order to live in a space one needs to be able to decode a space easily and efficiently and this proved difficult in Brasilia. This city was meant to be public but the exact opposite happened. The design of Brasilia internalized human behavior. The lack of socialization leads to people being individualistic therefore there is no spontaneity. Jane Jacobs in “Uses of City Neighborhoods” argues the importance of neighborhoods as power when done so successfully. The elite are favored in modernist cities, elites tend to be male and upper middle class people. They tend to only benefit themselves. Making decisions that are highly bureaucratic results in a drain of diversity. Although it is hard to create a functional neighborhood it is not impossible. Successful neighborhoods are “origins of self-government” which has more power in relation to high power bureaucrats. Cities are the seed of power which is why it is so important to have an organized grassroots. Regular people, which are considered the working class, should take their power back and find a way to speak up on the issues pertaining to their neighborhood and those who live there. Self-governance would allow for resources and assets to come into the communities that are not highly represented or represented at all for that matter. Neighborhood districts must have a leadership committee that fights for the progression of these cities. Progression in the sense of improvements in the neighborhood as well as organizing protest groups. Bureaucrats tend to not focus on improving neighborhoods that are low-income and/or of working class residents which is why these individuals must come together and unite in a common cause. City planners must design a city where buildings and landmarks promote social life and local identity.
Jacobs pushes for vernacular architecture instead of international style. Vernacular architecture promotes local identity which in turn ties the community together. High modernism city planners paint a picture of functional segregation being a better way to organize space but that is not the case. Spaces should be of multiple use, meaning that there should be flexibility within these spaces. Entertainment, work and living should coexist rather than be separated into sectors. By having them coexist this allows for easier access to social interactions. City planners should push for lively streets. Creating a sense of shared community through adding parks, libraries and other public places produces an effective district. New urbanism is a critique of modernism. It promotes environmentally friendly habits, such as, walkability, small scale, heritage and easily accessible public spaces.
New urbanism is a solution to the problems of modernism for some people, not for everyone. A good example of this is the film “The Green Economy” which takes place in Sea Brook. Although they do have a sustainable design, “no bureaucrats” and it is an “affordable” beach town. It is only a solution for those in the upper-middle class. In this film in particular, individuals living in Sea Brook are predominantly white. New urbanism leads to white flight. These individuals are escaping to build a new community away from the “problematic” neighborhoods. White city dwellers move to the suburbs in order to escape the influx of minorities. Since low-income minorities move to any home they can get their hands on they end up living in the high modernist cities rather than the sustainable, ecofriendly cities.
New urbanism is a form of self-segregation. It allows those that are wealthy to escape the problems that come with the high modernist designs, while the working class is left struggling in these societies. As always those who are wealthy and of high status are the ones benefitting from new urbanism. The idea of living in a new urbanist city is out of reach to the working class. New urbanism leads to a whole set of new issues that deals with the socializing aspect of life.
