Today I will be focusing on Greek architecture. One of the major misconceptions I had about Greek architecture was mistaking its architectural canons for a sense of Greek unity. However, the Greeks did not have nationalistic aspirations at all; rather they were broken into smaller city states called polies with their own distinct architectural, religious and political identities. I think this is quite similar to the way which Vancouver is broken up. You ask a Vancouverite where they live and you will usually receive a lengthy monologue about which neighborhood they live in, at least two facts about why it is better than any other neighborhood and why said location is an expression of their unique personality. It is known your surroundings will shape you; however I ask how do you shape your neighborhood?
So back to the Greeks – Here is the low down to get us all up to speed. Greek architecture is grouped into three orders: first Doric then Ionic and Corinthian (self-education linksies!). Each is an elaborated evolution of the previous and all inspired by earlier timber construction methods, before building in stone came into vogue – as those who have kept up with my blogs would already know. The Parthenon (438 BCE) built under Pericles’ rule is perhaps the most famous example of this trabeated style. Each city and era puts its own style into this architectural formula of columns and triangular pediments - even rotundas such as the Choragic Monument (334 BCE) emerged onto the scene. The manner of organizing city space also evolved throughout the Classical period.
Hippodamus of Miletus (498-408 BCE) is the earliest recorded urban planner. As populations grew and technology advanced, people urbanized and order needed to be put in place. In Miletus, Priene, and Olynthus Hippodamus made rationalized orthogonal streets which promoted healthy air flow and welcomed foreign traders. This method city planning can be seen over most of the GVRD and lower mainland – except for Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam because I guess they think they are too good for parallel streets and 90 degree corners. Aristotle on the other hand, welcomed an organic city growth which prevents easy access for invading armies. How are you supposed to pillage a city when you constantly are getting lost? Whether planned or unplanned, each polis organized their city to fit their needs and reflect their lifestyles.
While each Polis engaged in trade, they were all autonomic with their own social, religious, athletic, and political buildings to fulfill the needs of the citizens. An interesting note is the polies did not refer so much to the physical city as it did the citizens inhabiting it. For example, instead of referring to Vancouver, a polis would refer to the Vancouverites (we are not a Polis though as we are deeply politically and financially interconnected with the rest of Canada). I think this demonstrates the importance of cohesion between people within a community to the ancient Greeks.
This may explain the importance of civic buildings and public space to the Greeks. Classical architecture is famous for its grand public buildings: government buildings, theatres, stadiums and temples. While today, particularly in our multicultural society, religious space is considered nearly private space, to the Greeks, religion and ceremony were directly connected with civic pride. Cities had patron gods and goddesses who were thought to oversee the community’s prosperity. Civic rituals emerged to gain favor of certain divinities were more about the overall community than personal salvation, although Greeks would also appeal to various gods according to their own personal needs as well.
Compared to the ancient Greeks, the typical North American is nearly agoraphobic (couldn’t resist using a Greek inspired word). Personal space has expanded to an unprecedented scale. Commercialism has taught us to desire private space, items, transportation, and entertainment. Instead of books and movies from the library, buses, public pools, gyms, and parks we must personally own each and every thing we touch because heaven forbid someone else touches it. For every activity we do, even if only once a year, we must buy equipment, safety equipment and informational books and DVDs which are then later stored in garages and later in dumps. The overwhelming fear of child abduction leads parents to fill their backyards with every contraption found a block and a half away at the playground. It was probably one of televisions which are becoming more numerous in the North American home than original paintings which told them to do it too.
Not only are communal items and spaces more economic, they are also more environmental and less wasteful – obviously. However before architecture can be implemented, we must be ready for it and we must have the “right state of minds” as Le Corbusier put it. In his Manual of the Dwelling, he insists on quality over quantity and to “take a flat which is one size smaller than what your parents accustomed you to”. I think communal architecture is the answer to many of our issues with living space. We first must open our minds to it, and only then we can produce it. Like the Greeks, our public spaces should be grand and entice people out of their clutter. In this age, we are accustomed to a certain level of hygiene and ambiance - public space will never be used unless it surpasses what we can have at our convenience in our homes.
Getting out of the house and into the community is important for people. Sure there are public schools, hospitals and markets; however with the emergence of technology and the internet, a person can fully sustain themselves very comfortably without ever leaving the house. How then are communities and neighborhoods to be formed? Not to sound like a communist, but we (me included) need to let go of our white picket fence obsession, it is absolutely no good for us. On the other hand, I fully support individualism, personal expression of self and a healthy amount of privacy. I think the whole idea of the neighborhood is a great solution for urban areas.
While Vancouver is a fairly small city, it is comprised of many neighborhoods which almost have a polis-type sense of autonomy to them. Think about it: when you hear Yaletown, Commercial Drive, Kitsilano, West End or Gastown an image of the “type” of person who would live there instantly comes to mind. Each space is associated with certain values, society and activities. If we live in a group of people we associate with in these ways, we are more likely to engage in our community and public spaces. Getting people used to interacting with public spaces in an atmosphere they feel comfortable in may also lead to a habit of using communal spaces throughout the rest of the city and create a cohesion between the entire city.
In his book of essays, “Common Ground in a Liquid City”, Matt Hern stresses engaged citizens who have just as much agency over decisions as the experts, bureaucrats and planners are a necessity for a better future. Indeed, if everyone was more active in politics, perhaps the issues which resulted in the “Occupy” movement would have been addressed and taken care of long ago. However with such low voting turn outs and a lack of public interest in local politics, it is no wonder those who are in control have gotten away with corruption for so long. Taking a lesson from ancient civilizations may be the key for creating a city worth engaging in.
