The urban landscape: the changing definition of the city

Cities and towns were from there creation legal entities with a spatial demarcation. So within a certain boundary the residents of that area could enjoy certain rights or privileges. The right to fortify this boundary -originally with a paling, earth bank, ditch or hedge- was one of them. Other rights included private ownership of land, buildings and goods free of tithe, trading rights, and the right to raise taxes and tolls. The creation of cities and towns was often a strategic act by the one(s) that wanted to better control or better exploit their holdings or area. Such cities often have strategic positions on a trade route, at a river crossing, at a natural harbour or as a staple town (e.g. salt in the case of Salzburg, Munich, Regensburg and Lunenburg). Some cities occupy naturally high ground to be better defended (Luxemburg City and Buda are excellent examples, but there are many more).

As the economic importance of towns and cities grew, the settlements themselves grew and expanded, in some cases holding control over the countryside around it (Groningen for instance), or in other cases changing agricultural practices and land use around them (the market gardens around English towns are an example of this). In some cases the city authorities instigated land clearances for agriculture (very common in the Po Valley, in the Low Countries, the Indus Valley and in China) or were active in land reclamation (in Holland, Zealand, Friesland, Groningen, Flanders, Northern Germany and the Veneto, to mention a few). The influence could also be indirect: when a city was fortified an area was kept free of buildings to better defend it. Later expansion of the Italian fortifications in the Dutch or French style meant that large areas around a city were sacrificed for ramparts, bulwarks and moats. In some cases additional hydrological measures were taken to flood the area around a city as an extra defence (the improved Dutch system of Menno van Coehoorn).

As a result the city was clearly defined in both a spatial and a legal sense. This worked differently in areas where society was basically run by a rich merchant class as opposed to a system of feudal lordship. In the cities of the Hanseatic League, the Italian city states, the German Imperial Free Cities and the cities of the Low Countries feudal law was either non-applicable due to a freedom charter or the overlord depended so much on the taxes taken that he was too weak to oppose the city’s rulers. In both Dutch, Italian and German Free Cities the nobility that held the surrounding lands saw themselves obliged to build residences within the city in order to be closer to the real centre of power. The cities also attracted many tradesmen and craftsmen. Often cities specialised in a few trades or products and adapted the layout of the city accordingly.

In places with a strong feudal ruler, the cities were often less specialised. The exception were the new towns created for specific groups of immigrants where the local ruler provided space and rights to a specific group with a specific skill or trade. Examples are Neu-Isenburg Hanau-Neustadt and Erlangen, that were all founded by a count or duke to house Huguenot immigrants and diversify the local economy. Feudal cities are characterised by a stronghold or residence of the ruler. In some cities this could be a Paltz (a royal residence for the traveling entourage and court of a king), but in most cases it was the residence of the local ruler. It was therefor important to be a residential city, if the ruler moved the main residence most of the activity associated with it would also move away. The effect is especially visible in Germany where many cities still have a large castle or formal residence located on the edge of the old city. Only think of the large residential palaces of the Bishops of Cologne (located in Bonn), Münster, Mainz, Fulda, Würzburg and Bamberg, or the residences that dominate the centres of Dresden, Bayreuth, Ansbach, Munich, Stuttgart, Darmstadt, Kassel, Hannover, Gotha, Coburg, Weimar, Brunswick, Oldenburg, Karlsruhe, Schwerin, Cottbus, Oranienbaum, Siegen and Vienna.

Although cities expanded, sometimes in quite a large-scale way like Amsterdam, Munich and Berlin, most continental cities remained bound by some type of demarcation separating them from the countryside around them. Economic expansion -for instance new harbours- were built near the existing city (Antwerp and again Amsterdam) and brought within a new expanded demarcation or fortification, or were located at some distance (Delftshaven -literally Delft Harbour- or Sluis north of Bruges) as a separate entity. This changed with industrialisation.

Industrialisation was dependent on technical advances to boost productivity and simplify production so unskilled workers were able to do factory tasks instead of skilled artisans working together to produce certain goods. A rationalisation of production started after the Middle Ages, but remained relatively small-scale compared to the massive factories that were built from the mid-18^th century in England, later followed by Belgium, Germany, France and the United States. Industrialisation was also aided by good transport links (over water or by rail), the availably of labour and the availability of raw materials. Industrialisation followed the path of least resistance, and thus landed outside of established cities, or even in the countryside if there was ample space (the zinc plants in the Campine), clean process water available (textile industry of Twenthe), or raw material available (mining and steel production in the Ruhr Area). If there was no local population to fill the factories, these were brought in from further afield, or even from other countries.

These workers also need housing and facilities, especially near isolated production locations. In the Ruhr Area, Manchester, Genk and Heerlen the various urbanised areas merged into an urban tapestry. The railways, especially from 1850 onwards also lead to a rapid suburbanisation of work and housing. The railways made it possible to commute from and to work and live away from the factory or the office. The result was an outward explosion of urbanisation. In England the villages around cities were overrun by new residents and along new railway lines dedicated suburban housing was developed (Metroland in London). This urban expansion was often unplanned (London and the Ruhr Area), but sometimes efforts were made to streamline development. Planning of suburban development starts in earnest around 1900 in the Netherlands and Germany. Before that several people and reform groups propose new models of housing (Model Dwellings Companies, Baugenossenschaften), alternatives for unplanned growth (Camillo Sitte with his aesthetic theories and the suburban satellite model central to the Garden City Movement), and an emphasis on living conditions (Schreber Garten, Philanthropist Housing, Alms-houses and Courts Beguinage).

The result is an emphasis on allocation of functions, housing being one, besides industry, retail commercial, water, waterways, roads, railways, parks, recreation, civic use and so-on. In this tradition infrastructure is planned in accordance with the projected use and necessary changed are brought to the fore. In Germany the definition of city (Stadt) changes from a place with city rights to a settlement of regional importance with over 2.000 inhabitants. In England a city has to at least have 15.000 inhabitants to qualify. In the Netherlands, a place is only a city if it has historic city rights or over 100.000 inhabitants. In Germany a city can become a self-governing city (Kreisfreie Stadt) when it has over 100.000 inhabitents.

In some places cities have merged into large conurbations; in other places there is a clear hierarchy of central and peripheral places with the urban landscape. The city is now a functional designation that can include areas with varying degrees of urban density; the city has become an urban landscape!

Winter-ready: planting ahead for spring

If we have to trust advertising the best time to start planting bulbs for spring is in September. This couldn’t be more wrong for spring-flowering plants; the autumn-flowering bulbs are an exception! The end of November up to half December are actually much better, providing you don’t live in a frost pocket where the ground is too hard by that time to get anything into the ground. So recently my closing ceremony for autumn was performed: I’ve planted my containers with bulbs and pansies to have something to look at through the winter months and into spring.

I cleared my pots of the summer plants, that had completely gone over (middle) and removed the uppermost 10 centimetres of soil in the process. I had already bought new tulips and daffodils (right) and trays of pansies (left). Sadly no orange pansies were available.

I plant my pots with bulbs in the “lasagne style”: first I remove 10 centimetres more of the potting compost and add in some dried cow poop pellets. At the bottom I plant the late Parrot tulips (left). These are covered by old compost into which I plant the early Triumph tulips. These are covered with a mix of old and new compost. Into this the daffodils are planted. As I found some crocuses had survived and were sprouting, I replanted these corms amongst the daffodil bulbs (middle). I then planted the pansies above the last layer of bulbs, making sure to fill the gaps with fresh compost. Only days in the ground, the first signs of winter have come down resulting in a light dusting of snow covering my pots (right). The pansies will brave even that weather with the buds not opening until it warms up.

Cité-Jardin Kapelleveld: Avant Garde housing in shades of grey

The garden village Kapelleveld at Woluwe-Saint-Lambert near Brussels is an example of a modernist interpretation of the garden city model, here translated into a garden suburb or suburban garden village. The housing is mostly modernist, with a small section in a traditionalist style. The housing with the flat roofs and the dark roof trim is similar to that seen in La CitéModerne, another modernist garden village near Brussels.

Of the three tree-lined avenues two remain. The central avenue has a tram and the southern avenue has a garden-like central reservation. The northern avenue was never replanted after WW2. Cars and parking now dominate the edges. As this avenue was intended as a major thoroughfare the dimensions can handle present-day traffic.

In the 1950s some blocks of terraced housing were added along the Avenue Albert Dumont. This housing by Paul Posno (right) is similar in size to the original housing (left), but much less detailed. Also the block is treated less sculptural and the proportions are much less harmonious -the blocks are evidently not designed with asset of harmonious proportions in mind. The Avenue Albert Dumont was named after an architect of French origin who is well known for designing many villas and cottages, especially on the Belgian coast. He was also one of the promotors of the Garden City Movement in Belgium.

The original housing was arranged along kinged streets that ran off the avenues at a right angle. The side walls form the entrances to the residential streets. This way of separating street along function is common in New Objectivity housing in the Benelux and Germany.

The kinked street marries the ideal of short view creating a sense of place which fits nicely with Sitte-esque design theory and the Unwinesque elaboration of it. Apart from this the garden village at Kappelleveld has no typical features of the Garden City Movement aesthetic.

The blocks of terraced housing are sculptural compositions with a strong cubist aesthetic. The short chimneys at the corners of the main blocks are used in a decorative way to break the flatness of the roofline which is emphasised by the black wooden trim. The staggering of the building line is very effective and creates a pleasant flow along the street.

Another type is basically a modernist semidetached house with protruding sections at the corners, reminiscent of standing bays. In places this type has been linked to form row housing (left). The design plays with verticality and horizontality with the narrow high windows at either end and low and wide windows in the middle.

The standard type with the low chimneys all have rendered facades. The colour can vary from off white, via light grey (on the left) to dark grey (on the right at the front). The wooden trim is always painted black to unify the sculptural blocks in the streetscape.

All housing has a front garden. In true garden village style these gardens were edged by a hedge. Here privet was used. All gardens were made uniform by using a similar green edge. Sadly the hedges have bene removed in places, or have bene replaced by hedges made from a different plant species (mostly beech and box). At the end of the streets the orange clay tile roofs of the intermediate section are just visible.

The southwestern section of the garden village was designed in a mixed style with pitched roofs covered in clay tiles above cubist blocks. The result is an Avant Garde marriage of the traditional and the modern. All the facades are rendered, with wooden trim in black and white. The chimneys are practical and not used as a decorative device. The bays and dormers are used in that way however.

The intermediate housing has flat dormers with a protruding roof directly above the window frames. Al woodwork of the doors and windows is painted white, as well as the underside of the eaves (right). The front of the box gutter is painted black. The awnings above the front doors are treated similarly.  

The contrast between these two sections is remarkable. This makes that the garden village Kapelleveld is defined as three neighbourhoods by the architectural expression of the buildings. The central core is modernist, sculptural and cubist, the southwestern section is Avant Garde mix of traditional and modern and the southeastern section is traditionalist with a sculptural treatment of the facades in brick.