| |
Le Corbusier was throughout his career a passionate advocate of the high-density city. For him, however, the purpose of density was not to achieve a rich and varied urban fabric or to promote a lively street life, but to increase access to nature: medium and high-rise blocks would free up space for parkland, bringing the “essential joys” of light, air and greenery into the modern city. Le Corbusier spoke out vehemently against suburbs planned on a Garden City model because of the hours of commuting which their low densities imposed. Nonetheless, his conviction that cities must bring about a reconciliation between man and nature grew out of the Garden City movement: he was a reader of Howard, Unwin and Muthesius and an admirer of Hellerau and Hampstead Garden Suburb as a young man, and christened his own Ville radieuse a “vertical garden city”. His high-density urban plans, I suggest, owe much to low-density precedents.
Le Corbusier’s city plans have often been criticised, both for revealing an instrumentalised conception of nature and for threatening the true, essential density of a city. I want to question the assumptions underlying both these critiques. Firstly, Le Corbusier’s understanding of nature was by no means exclusively instrumental, but tried to engage with an older sense of nature as cosmically ordered; for him, urban green space was therefore much more than just a public amenity. Secondly, are the most successful cities invariably those that conform most closely to Jane Jacobs’s model of a dense, sociable, low-rise city in which green space is at a premium, or could a combination of high-density, community-fostering blocks set within large areas of green space also be a sustainable model?
|