new internationalist
issue 313 - June 1999
From
Toronto to Timbuktu the shapes of cities vary quite dramatically. But why?
Here are some attempts to explain and categorize the differences.
THE COSMIC (OR
HOLY) CITY
This city reflects beliefs about the universal and social order. Characteristic
design features are a monumental axis – a temple, cathedral or citadel, for
example – some dominant landmarks and reliance on a regular grid. Baroque ‘ideal
city’ plans tend to fit this model.1
THE PRACTICAL CITY
The design of colonial and company towns and the grid cities of the US are motivated
by practicality. A city, according to this model, is made up of small autonomous
parts linked together into a great machine which has clearly differentiated
functions and motions.1
THE ORGANIC (OR
WALKING) CITY
This city is a living thing, evolving in a natural way to fit the landscape.
It has a definite boundary, an optimum size, and a cohesive individual internal
structure. All destinations can be reached by foot in 30 minutes, and it is
rarely more than five kilometres wide. This model is typical of medieval towns,
and can still be found in the centres of older European and North African and
Asian cities. 1,2
THE TRANSIT CITY
At the end of the nineteenth century trains and trams allowed cities to expand
outwards. Trains create sub-centres at train stations and trams generate development
along their routes. The transit city tends to be a medium density, mixed-use
city, with a dominant focus at the city core. These cities now spread 20 to
30 kilometres across.2
AUTOMOBILE CITY
The growth of car use after 1945 made it possible to expand in all directions.
Low-density suburbs house commuters, with separate zones for industry and commerce
created by planners. The city is decentralized and dispersed and is typically
50 km or more wide. This model is very dominant in the world today.2
FUTURE
CITY?
This could be more compact in nature, with mixed use of residential, commercial
and small-scale industry. Apart from the city centre there would be sub-centres
or nuclei, linked by an extensive and efficient network of public transit, reducing
the need for car ownership and freeing up space for green amenities.2
Sources:
1 Kevin Lynch in Good City Form, 1981.
2 Adapted from Peter Newman, ‘The Car, the Community and Quality of Life’,
Seminar Paper 1993, quoted in Joan Roelof’s Greening Cities.

