Page 1

Potato

40 Cities through the Lens of Patrick Abercrombie

Plan Edited by Mirjam ZĂźger Kees Christiaanse

Collection nai010 publishers


The Potato Plan Collection


The Potato Plan Collection 40 Cities through the Lens of Patrick Abercrombie

Edited by Mirjam ZĂźger Kees Christiaanse

nai010 publishers


8 Introduction Kees Christiaanse, Mirjam Züger

202 204 206 207 208

City Size Comparison City Index Bibliography, Image Credits Data Source City Index Credits


22 Addis Ababa Felix Heisel, Raphael Disler 26 Amsterdam Bart Reuser, Mark Jongerius 30 Athens Eirini Kasioumi, Eleni Papadaki 36 Bangkok Sonja Berthold, Apiradee Kaseemsook 42 Barcelona Melisa Pesoa, Joaquín Sabaté, Jordi Franquesa 46 Beijing Zhu Wenyi, Liu Pinghao 50 Beirut Phillipp Misselwitz, Iman Charara 54 Belfast Michael McGarry, MArch Students at Queen’s University Belfast 58 Bogotá David Burbano, Natalia Ramírez 62 Budapest Domonkos Wettstein 66 Buenos Aires Julián Varas, Sofía Moneta 70 Cairo Charlotte Malterre-Barthes, Roxanne De Raeymaecker 74 Cape Town Heinrich Wolff, Temba Jauch 78 Chicago Vedran Mimica, Jorge Serra, Agata Siemionow 82 Copenhagen Deane Simpson, Cecilie Overgaard Rasmussen 88 Dar es Salaam Mariam Abbas, Gunter Klix 92 Dublin Michael McGarry, MArch Students at Queen’s University Belfast 96 Frankfurt am Main Martina Baum, Diana Böhm, Anna Kübler, Thorsten Stelter 100 Guangzhou Francesca Frassoldati, Anqi Ni 104 Houston Sarah Whiting, Sara Jacinto 108 Istanbul Alp Arisoy 112 Greater Jakarta Devisari Tunas, Miya Irawati, Stephen Cairns 116 Jerusalem Nilly R Harag, Asaf Bivas, Amnon Direktor 122 Lagos Fabienne Hoelzel, Aro Ismaila 128 Ljubljana Tadej Glažar, Marijana Krizmanić, Manca Košir, Jan Kozinc 132 London Peter Bishop 136 Mexico City Jose Castillo Olea, Saidee Springall, Monica Arzoz, Annika Ussel 140 Milan Cino Zucchi, Giulia Novati 144 Munich Roman Leonhartsberger, Mark Michaeli 148 New York Georgeen Theodore, Thomas Dores 152 Osaka Metropolitan Area Jan Polívka, Svenja Krings 158 Oslo Marianne Skjulhaug, Miles Hamaker 162 Riga Sandra Treija, Hilda Treija 166 Rome Stefano de Martino, Alexander Gogl 172 Ruhr Region Anne Söfker-Rieniets 176 Sofia Georgi Stanishev, Greta Dimitrova-­Mandova, Atanas Kovachev, Igor Yankulov 180 Tel Aviv-Yafo Els Verbakel, Adva Matar 184 Toronto Mark Sterling, Sabrina Yuen 190 West Midlands Daniel Bläser 194 Zurich Mirjam Züger


8

Introduction

From the first moment we saw Patrick Abercrombie’s diagram of London’s community structure, officially named ‘Social and Functional Analysis’ → Fig. 1 also known as the ‘egg diagram’ or, as we call it, the ‘Potato Plan’,1 we were fascinated by both its beauty and its striking clarity. This diagrammatic plan, produced in 1943, was part of the County of London Plan commissioned by the London County Council (LCC) and authored by Sir Leslie Patrick Abercrombie (1879–1957) and John Henry Forshaw (1895–1973). It was the first comprehensive regional plan of London and includes maps of a Community and Open Space Survey, Open Space, Development and Zoning, Roads, Preliminary Industrial Proposals, Density of Population and Deep Railway Tracks. Preceding the Greater London Plan from 1944 for a much larger area, also led by Abercrombie, the project was meant to outline a vision for a post-Second World War development of London, which had faced bomb damage and irregular growth caused by large population movements. The plan attempted to find solutions to the problems of traffic congestion, depressed housing, inadequacy and mal-distribution of open spaces, the jumble of houses and industries, and the sprawl and suburbanization of surrounding country towns.2 The Potato Plan as the visual centrepiece, illustrated by Arthur Ling, was part of the first chapter of the County of London Plan entitled ‘Social Groupings and Major Use Zones’. The plan poetically illustrates that an urban agglomeration consists of a large number of communities and centralities of distinct characters, which are both more or less self-sufficient and part of a larger organism at the same time. The recognition of urban sprawl as a problem on the one hand, and the need for a progressive decentralized spreading principle of population and production as a solution on the other, was a unique driver of the plan. Abercrombie described the need for an outward movement through the creation of New Towns to cope with the overcrowding of the city, but in line with London’s organic character, urbanization needed to follow the principles of a regulated system of interlinked communities in order to preserve London’s identified image as a city of villages. He was convinced that the spirit of these communities was still there, but that their ‘boundaries were blurred and lost in London’s untides sprawl’.3 The goal of the plan was to clarify the urban pattern by separating and reorganizing the existing communities and introducing new ones in a system of controlled density and distribution of services. The exact definition of the entities according to size, structure and function underlined and shaped the legibility of London as an archipelago of communities with different characters. In the film The Proud City, released by the LCC in 1946, both Abercrombie and Foreshaw explain the London Plan. They emphasize the Plan not as a clear-cut, fixed plan, but as an open-ended vision to discuss with the population, although in a detailed zoom-in on Stepney, they reveal their idea of the community in a technocratically precise manner. Every community, or as we call it potato, would consist of three or more neighbourhoods, referred to as social units comprising 6,000 to 10,000 people. Basic amenities, like schools and churches, would be offered in the centre of each neighbourhood. In parallel overarching amenities like a townhall, hospital, or institute of higher education would be located in the centre of the community, to enable the idea of living, playing and working near home. Each potato should be surrounded by a green belt to ensure immediate recreation and avoid overlaps with other potatoes. By overcoming a necessary migration to the city centre for supply and work, not only could the desired independent spirit

Fig. 1 (→ next page) Original plan ‘Social and Functional Analysis’ in: P. Abercrombie and J. Forshaw, County of London Plan, 1943.


9

of the neighbourhoods and communities rise, but space would also be created for new developments and green areas in the core city. The great merit of the Potato Plan is that it renders the city of London both as a comprehensive whole and as an organism built up of multiple cells. Abercrombie considered the neighbourhood to be the smallest cell and just as much as each of these neighbourhoods must be linked up to form a community, all the communities must be interrelated to formulate the overall structure of the city as an organic whole. The Potato Plan also reveals another level of hierarchy by grouping some communities into clusters. Some are more central, mixed and diverse than others, and represent the main configuration of the city in a larger context. Its significance for the urban design discourse is that, although Abercrombie stems from a generation of urbanists that still thought they were able to control urbanization in a rather top-down way, the plan also suggests a more open condition of a city that can change or grow. In this sense the Potato Plan of London shows a gradual dilution towards the city’s boundaries. Potatoes become larger, more dispersed or are even solitary, like former villages, surrounded by landscape. On the outside of the red County of London contour Abercrombie subtly renders a shaded haze highlighting the County of London border against the backdrop of Greater London. The haze suggests the desire for an inner version of the Metropolitan Green Belt (which is located beyond the frame of the Potato Plan), of which Abercrombie, as the founder of the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) in 1926, was a protagonist. Abercrombie’s approach allows the differentiation of the potatoes into more generic and more specialized communities, as if ‘all potatoes are equal, but some potatoes are more equal than others’ (free adapted from George Orwell’s Animal Farm of 1945).4 Thus the City and the central communities around the West End are more important and diversified than the more remote ones, accentuated through the representation of specific single potatoes like University, Government, Press and Law.5 The residual central potatoes suffer according to Abercrombie from obsolescent property6, meaning that he saw an opportunity here to engage in large scale urban renewal. The differentiation of communities introduces a hierarchy in the plan, which allows us to emphasize a city’s centralities7 in a larger field of more homogenous and neutral districts. Most importantly, this hierarchy enables a layered reading of London, from ‘upscale to downscale’: the potatoes are embedded in their clusters, the clusters in the comprehensive hierarchy of the whole city. The potatoes in the original plan are embedded in a background colour of white (suburban communities), grey (central communities), orange (West End) and blue (Mixed General Business and Industry). The dark blue in-between zones represent the main industry and infrastructure, while the open space is rendered green. In a different version of the Potato Plan → Fig. 2 where the Thames flows from bottom to top in the image, the contrasts in colour are much stronger, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

From now on we will refer to the map in the entire collection as the Potato Plan. P. Abercrombie and J. Forshaw, County of London Plan (London: MacMillan & Co., 1943). The Proud City, a Plan for London (London: Greenpark productions, 1946). G. Orwell, Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (London: Secker and Warburg, 1945) In the contemporary Potato Plans drawn in this collection most of these specific functions are described as punctual centres rather than neighbourhoods or communities. Abercrombie and Forshaw, County of London Plan, op. cit. (note 2). To clarify the distinction between centre and centrality as we use it in this collection, a centre is a focal point, and a concentration of amenities and services in a city. Centrality in the first place describes the degree of concentration and density of amenities and services, symbols, people, and so forth. in a specific place within a city, and also the degree of its interrelation with and interdepence on other spaces in a polycentric constellation. Furthermore, centrality also outlines a mental projection onto a space, describing its aura as a centre.


28

Amsterdam

0

2,5 km

WESTZAAN KOGERVELD ASSENDELFT

KOOG

WESTERWATERING

ZAANDAM OOSTZAAN

POELENBURG WESTZANER-OVERTOOM ZUIDERHOUT

LANDSMEER

ACHTERSLUIS POLDER MOLENWIJK

OOSTZANER WERF

TUINDORP OOSTZAAN

NDSM

WESTELIJK HAVENGEBIED

BUIKSLOOT

BUIKSLOTERHAM

SPAARN DAMMER BUURT VOLEWIJCK

SLOTERDIJK

ZEE HELDEN BUURT

VOGELBUURT

OVERHOEKS

STAATSLIEDEN BUURT

HALFWEG

IJ-PLEIN

JORDAAN

BOS EN LOMMER GEUZENVELD SLOTERMEER

ZWANENBURG

H K

KATTEN BURG

BINNENSTAD DE BAARSJES OUD WEST

PLANTAGE GRACHTENGORDEL

SLOTERVAART OSDORP

HOOFDDORPPLEIN

MIDDELVELDSCHE AKERPOLDER

UVA

HVA OOSTERPARKBUURT

MUSEUMKWARTIER DE PIJP OUD ZUID

TRANSVAAL BUURT

WATE

LIJNDEN NIEUW SLOTEN STADION- EN APOLLOBUURT

SLOTEN

RIVIERENBUURT

RIEKERPOLDER ZUIDAS

BADHOEVEDORP

AMSTEL BUSINESSPARK

VU MC

BUITENVELDERT

AMSTERDAMSE BOS

AMSTELLAND

SCHIPHOL - HAARLEMMERMEER AMSTELVEEN

SCHIPHOL

OMVAL

SCHINKEL


29

A B C D

F G H I J

L M N O

R S T

W

Central Districts

ILPENDAM

Districts Residential Districts Outside the City Border

Central Area Concentration Youth Concentration Elderly

WATERGANG

Cultural District Commercial and Business District Universities Night Life Cluster Inudstrial and Harbour Area Green BUIKSLOTERMEER

Water Retail Concentration

WATERLAND PLEINBUURT

Administration Buildings

TUINDORP WATERLAND

Border

DE OVERKANT

SCHELLINGWOUDE

DURGERDAM KNSM-EILAND

HANDELS KADE

SPORENBURG

ZEEBURGER EILAND

BORNEO-EILAND CRUQUIUSEILAND

STEIGEREI LAND

INDISCHE BUURT

IJMEER SCIENCE PARK IJBURG

ERGRAAFSMEER

DIEMEN NOORD

BETONDORP DIEMEN DE SNIEP

DUIVENDRECHT

MUIDEN

GAASP EN DIEM

BIJLMER CENTRUM

BIJLMER ARENA

BIJLMERMEER

WEESP

Z


34

Athens

0

5 km

PARNITHA

VARYMPOPI THRAKOMAKEDONES AMYGDALEZA OLYMPIAKO CHORIO

AGRILEZA

FILIS

NEA KIFISIA

NEA ERITHREA

ACHARNES

ANO LIOSIA

PO

PROF. ILIAS

GORYTSA

KIFISIA

MAGOULA MANDRA

ZEFIRI LYKOVRYSI ASPROPYRGOS METAMORPHOSI

KAMATERO

PIKILO ELEFSINA

NEA PHILADELPHIA PARALIA ASPROPYRGOU

AGII ANARGYRI

ANTHOUPOLI NEA ZOI

KOUNELIA

CHAIDARI

SALAMINA

PALOUKIA

AMPELAKIA

PERAMA NEO IKONIO

NEO FALIRO AGIA TRIADA PIREAS KASTELLA

PAPAGOU

PAGKRATI KESARIANI

VYRONAS YMITTOS

YMITTOS

DAFNI

ANO ILIOUPOLI

NEA SMYRNI

TERPSITHEA KALLIPOLI SELINIA

GOUDI

METS

NEOS KOSMOS GOUVA

TZITZIFIES

CHOLARGOS

ZOGRAFOU

KALLITHEA

MOSCHATO

NEO PSYCHIKO

ILISIA

PLAKA

KOUKAKI

TAVROS

KAMINIA

DRAPET SONA

SALAMINA

THISSIO

RENTIS

AGIA PARASKEVI

AMPELOKIPOI

EXARCHIA

PETRALONA

PALEA MANIATIKA KOKKINIA TAMPO URIA

ATHINA CENTRE

MONASTIRAKI KOLONAKI

GAZI

NIKEA

NEA FILOTHEI

POLYGONO GKYZI

PLATONOS METAXOURGIO

CHALKIDONA KERA TSINI

VIKTORIA

KOLONOS

KORYD ALLOS

CHALANDRI

PSYCHIKO

KYPSELI

EGALEO

NEAPOLI

GALATSI

ANO CHALANDRI

SIDERA

AGIOS ANTONIOS

AGIA VARVARA

AMFIALI

FILOTHEI

KATO PATISIA

SEPOLIA

SCHI STO

EGALEO

PERISTERI

POLYDROSO

PERISSOS

ANO PATISIA

MIKONIATIKA BOURNAZI

PALATAKI

KALOGREZA

NEA CHALKIDONA

ILION

CHRISOUPOLI DASOS

PARADISOS

NEA IONIA

PETROUPOLI

DAFNI

MAROUSI

IRAKLEIO

ANO PETROUPOLI

ELEFSINA GULF

PEFKI

PALEO IRAKLIO

KAREAS

AGIOS DIMITRIOS

FREATTYDA PIRAIKI

PALEO FALIRO BRACHAMI

ALIMOS

ELLINIKO

SARONIKOS GULF

ILIOUPOLI

ANO KALAMAKI

ARGYROUPOLI

SOURMENA

TERPSITHEA

ANO GLYFADA EGLI

PARALIA GLYFADAS

GLYFADA EXONI

PANORAMA VOULAS

VOULA ANO VOULA VARI

PIGADAKIA KAVOURI ANO VOULIAGMENI AGIOS GEORGIOS

VARKIZA KATO VOULIAGMENI


35

A B C D

F G H I J

L M N O

R S T

W

Central Area AGIOS STEFANOS

Districts

KRYONERI ANIXI

Agro-Suburbs

STAMATA

Central Cores EKALI

Cultural Quarter

DROSIA DIONYSOS

Business Oriented Areas Entertainment Oriented Areas

OLITIA NEA MAKRI

Health Oriented Areas

PENTELI KEFALARI

Local Centralities

NEA PENTELI MELISSIA

Northern Suburbs NEOS VOUTZAS

VRILISSIA

I

Western Suburbs

KALLITECHNOUPOLI

ANTHOUSA

Southern Suburbs RAFINA

Organized Leisure / Sport Spaces

GERAKAS

PIKERMI

PALLINI

GLIKA NERA

Government Quarter Large Commercial Facilities

ARTEMIDA

KANTZA

Large Educational Facilities Airports

SPATA

AEGEAN SEA

PEANIA

Inactive Airfields Industrial Areas Industrial Suburbs Mountains / Hills / Creeks Agricultural / Open Space

KOROPI

Water

PORTO RAFTI MARKOPOULO

Major Commercial Streets Town Halls Metro and Train Stops Major Highways

KALIVIA THORIKOU

Overground Rail DASKALIO

Underground Rail

AGIA MARINA

City of Athens Border KERATEA

Z


102

Guangzhou

0

5 km

白云机场 BAIYUN AIRPORT

花都区 HUADU DISTRICT

里水镇 LISHUI

白云区 BAIYUN DISTRICT 金沙 JINSHA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 荔湾区 LIWAN DISTRICT

越秀区 YUEXIU DISTRICT

公园前 PEOPLE’S PARK

大历镇 DALI

广州 GUANGZHOU CITY

天河区 TIANHE DISTRICT

INDUSTRIAL CITY

珠江新城 C.B.D.

黄埔区 HUANGPU DISTRICT

T.I.T. 海珠区 HAIZHU DISTRICT

小州村 XIAOZHOU VILLAGE

佛山市 FOSHAN CITY

南海区 NANHAI

罗边村 LUOBIAN VILLAGE 禅城区 CHANGCHENG 揽塘村 LANTANG VILLAGE 陈村镇 CHENCUN 乐从镇 LECONG 番禺区 PANYU DISTRICT 西樵镇 XIQIAO

西郊村 XIJIAO VILLAGE 北滘镇 BEIJIAO

沙湾 SHAWAN

龙江镇 LONGJIANG

大良 SHUNDE


103

A B C D

F G H I J

L M N O

R S T

W

Central Districts Normal Districts Outside Districts Big Settlements Traditional Settlements Multifunctional Settlements Cultural Centre Central Business District Compact City Guangzhou Compact City Surrounding Cities 黄埔区 HUANGPU DISTRICT

Secondary Centres Industrial City Contemporary City Infrastructure Hub Fair & Exhibition Centres Creative District Research & Education Centre

萝岗 LUOGANG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

Industrial Area 中堂镇 ZHONGTANG

石碣镇 SHIJIE

高埗镇 GAOBU

石排镇 SHIPAI

Water

莞城 GUANCHENG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 东城 DONGCHENG RESIDENTIAL 东莞市 DISTRICT DONGGUAN CITY

茶山镇 CHASHAN

Retail Concentration Administration Buildings

南城 NANCHENG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

望牛墩镇 WANGNIUDUN 道滘镇 DAOJIA

Border

寮步镇 LIAOBU

厚街镇 HOUJIE

大朗镇 DALANG 沙田镇 SHATIAN

虎门镇 HUMEN

Green

东坑镇 DONGKENG

Z


144

Munich

Munich usually conjures up the image of a picturesque, compact European metropolis. Currently the city simultaneously plays the roles of transport interchange, high-tech location and ‘soft’ metropolis with a high quality of life, oriented towards local recreation and high culture; all these roles are closely connected with the intertwinement of a monocentric urban core with the open countryside surrounding it. The ensuing radial logic, backed by the development of the city as a monarchical seat of power, reveals itself in the dominant presence of transport arteries and wide thoroughfares. Nonetheless, through traffic and the city’s strategic location as a hub of trade near the river crossing played a dominant role in asserting its rank in southern Germany as a whole. Only from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards and after the canalization of the Isar River did Munich really turn into the ‘city on the river’. During the past 200 years, Munich’s structural development has been marked by strong urban growth; expansion of the city has mainly taken the form of individual, large-scale land development and, to start with, was almost exclusively concentrated on the western side of the Isar River. From the early twentieth century onwards, powerful prerequisites in terms of planning—such as Theodor Fischer’s Staffelbauplan (Graduated Building Plan), in force from 1904 until 1980—decisively influenced the structural expansion of the city. Together with the Baulinienplan (Street Alignment Plan), this instrument emphasized a formal structure based on existing road connections and farmland patterns. This planning instrument precisely stipulated the building envelopes and volumes while saying little about an urban programme, thus leaving a great deal of freedom regarding land and building utilization. Within the urban extension to the north, one can quite easily decipher the transition from the older orthogonal scheme of the Maxvorstadt to the more organic alignments in the borough of Schwabing, due to the new morphologic approach of Fischer. Munich, relative to its metropolitan area, is the most densely populated German city; besides, there have been no significant city extensions or incorporations for almost 75 years. For this reason, the separation between the city and its surroundings is immediately clear on a satellite image: a densely built urban centre stands out from its hinterland. Imprinted by forestry and farming, the near countryside is shaped by island-like medieval clearings around villages and by the suburbs and urban fringes that have emerged along the railway corridors. The lack of rival structures in the areas around Munich favoured its expansion as a flat radial city. The next large city was far away and the surrounding countryside featured hardly any obstacles: the agrarian cultural landscape was transformed by urban development. While urbanization took place plot by plot and disconnectedly, an ambivalent zone—displayed in white on the map—has lingered on the settlement’s edge. This zone, though it is interspersed with elements and relicts from both spheres, cannot be clearly ascribed to either spatial realm. This is particularly evident in the semi-circular part of the northern urban hinterland: individual elements are scattered like residues across the originally sparsely populated gravel plains to the north of Munich. Only a few exceptions to this contrast between the city and its surroundings exist: some towns and places of historical significance such as Freising (bishop’s seat), Dachau and Schleißheim (royal residence) or Fürstenfeldbruck (market and cloister).


145

A B C D

F G H I J

L M N O

R S T

W

Z

In the structural context of Munich, the role of industry is characterized by its relatively late development and its location along the railway lines. There never was a dominant topographical connection to a port or a direct riverside location, as elsewhere, and large landscape features such as flood plains, parks and forests had hardly any influence on the location of facilities. Until now, remaining large-scale conversions in Munich have had less to do with deindustrialization processes than with business relocation—away from plots close to the centre—to the city’s fringes, and with the rezoning of military precincts and transport infrastructure areas. Following the destruction wrought by the Second World War, the twentieth century’s fast-paced urban growth accelerated, mainly with the traditionally strong construction of settlements. The few and rather weak structural features of the suburbs had much less influence on expansion plans than the Graduated Building Plan, which kept being used as guidance for Munich’s restoration-driven approach to post-war reconstruction. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the Olympic Games, the construction of largescale housing estates and the extension of transport infrastructure sped up this growth even more, neither following a development line nor a logic predefined by existing structures. The urban development plan of 1960 prescribed the step-by-step development of settlements and the concentration of decentralized growth along the railway lines in the suburbs. From then on, this guiding idea influenced the size, coherence and mutual relations between the suburbs, along with their internal structure. As a result, some districts—consisting of gradually planned areas, large housing estates or country elements—are situated accidentally beside suburban developments that, following the designation of massive building plots, have grown together between old village centres or along old country roads and streams in the urban hinterland. On the other hand, places combining infrastructure areas, fragments of settlements or industry undergoing partial conversion can be found between these. Thus an urban landscape of entities lying next to each other came into existence, sometimes in the shape of a close-knit archipelago, at other times devoid of any relationship. We can differentiate between the internal structures of these ‘potatoes’—they can be conglomerates, sprawl or even enclaves touching the limits of the chosen plan representation. These ‘new’ forms are a reflection of change in the genesis of morphological entities. Veritable mutations, they reveal the discontinuities between the nineteenth century city and the pre-Second World War city, the urban development of modernity and the urban landscape of the present, emerging from the multiple adjustments and transformations of the available urban stock. The ongoing process leads to an even more intensified divergence between the development logics of the centre and outskirts. In the past decades, accumulation, bundling and agglomeration in the ‘inner’ peripheries have led to an increased integration of the core area, while the ‘potato’ has continued to remain a structural feature in the external areas; in addition, when the city expands, as in Riem or Freiham, it underpins, like a genetic pattern, yet paradoxically, any recent and further development. Roman Leonhartsberger and Mark Michaeli, Technical University of Munich


146

Munich

0

2,5 km

UNTERSCHLEISSHEIM

DACHAU

GÜNDING

OBERSCHLEISSHEIM

FELDGEDING

ROT

KARLSFELD

FELDMOCHING MAN/MTU

HASENBERGL

OLCHING HARTHOF FASANERIE ALLACH KMW

GRÖBENZELL

AM HART

LERCHENAU

RANGIERBAHNHOF NORD

EURO-INDUSTRIEPARK BMW MOOSACH NORD MOOSACH WEST

UTERMENZING

LOCHHAUSEN

MOOSACH

OEZ

OLYMPIADORF

MILBERTSHOFEN

SPORTS

EICHENAU BORSTEI

OBERMENZING

NEDERLING

OBERMENZING WEST

SCHWABING

NYMPHENBURGER PARK

AUBING

SCHWABING NYMPHENBURG

OBERMENZING SÜD

NEU-AU BING

SCHWABING NORD

OLYMPIAPARK

MAXVORSTADT

NEUHAUSEN

UNIVERSITY

WESTEN

WESTKREUZ

UNIVERSITY PASING WEST

FREIHAM

PASING OST

CBD

WESTEND

GERMERING

LAIM WEST

LUDWIGVORTHERESISTADT ENWIESE

LAIM OST

KUNSTAREAL LEHEL ALTSTADT

ISAR-VOR STADT

SÜDSTADT

BLUMENAU

HAID SEN RECHTS DER ISAR

AU GRÄFELFING HADERN

HARRAS WESTPARK

WESTPARK

WALDFRIEDHOF PLANEGG

MITTER-SEND LING

SENDLING

UNTERGIESING HELLABRUNN

THALKIRCHEN

OBERGIESING

HARLACHING NORD

OBER-SEND LING

KRAILLING NEURIED

HARLACHING

FÜRSTENRIED

FORSTENRIED SOLLN

GAUTING

PULLACH

GRÜNWALD

FASANGARTEN


147

A B C D

F G H I J

L M N O

R S T

W

Central Districts Normal Districts

DIETERSHEIM

Outside Districts GARCHING FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM

Housing Estates

UNIVERSITY

Central Area HOCHBRÜCK

FISCHERHÄUSER

GARCHING

Cultural Centre Business Centre Main Sectors ISMANING

Punctual Centralities SPORTS SPEICHERSEE

FRÖTTMANING

KIEFERN-GARTEN

Industry / Railway

GROSSLAPPEN

Forest Green & Agriculture

PLIENING

UNTERFÖHRING

FREIMANN

Water

LANDSHAM STUDENTENSTADT

Pocket KIRCHHEIM JOHANNESKIRCHEN

ENGLISCHER GARTEN

ASCHHEIM

POING

GARTENSTADT JOHANNESKIRCHEN

OBERFÖHRING

ARABELLAPARK

Drop

HEIMSTETTEN

HERZOG-PARK BUSINESS CLUSTER

Retail Concentration

DORNACH

DENNING

FELDKIRCHEN

NEUFARN

DAGLFING BOGENHAUSEN

ZAMDORF

RIEM

WEISSENFELD KIRCHTRUDERING

WERKSVIERTEL

NIGHTLIFE

MESSESTADT RIEM

Sprawl

OTTENDICHL

Leisure Landscape

TRUDERING

RAMERSDORF

RAMERSDORF SÜD

Administration Buildings

PARSDORF TRADE FAIR

DHAU-

Conglomeration

Border

GRONSDORF IAK KLINIKUM

WALD-TRUDERING

BERG AM LAIM

HAAR

HOCHÄCKERSTRASSE

ALTPERLACH

VATERSTETTEN

NEUPERLACH

UNIVERSITÄT DER BUNDESWEHR

NEUKEFERLOH

NEUBIBERG PUTZBRUNN

GRASBRUNN

UNTERHACHING OTTOBRUNN

AM WALD

HARTHAUSEN

HOHENBRUNN TAUFKIRCHEN

Z


188

Toronto

0

5 km

HILLCREST BAYVIEW / CUMMER

DON VALLEY

NEWTONBROOK

WILLOWDALE BAYVIEW VILLAGE

BLACK CREEK UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS

LANSING

WILSON HEIGHTS / BATHURST MANOR

EMERY

THISTLETOWN

YORK MILLS

ST. ANDREWS HOGG’S HOLLOW

JANE FINCH

THISTLETOWN

NORTH YORK CENTER

DOWNSVIEW AIRPORT DOWNSVIEW

HUMBERLEA

BEDFORD PARK LAWRENCE MANOR / LEDBURY PARK LYTTON PARK

LAWRENCE HEIGHTS

REXDALE

AMESBURY

BRIDLE PATH LAWRENCE PARK

NORTH TORONTO

GLEN PARK

WESTON

FOREST HILL KEELESDALE / SILVERTHORN

THORNCLIFFE PARK

DEER PARK

HUMEWOOD / CEDARVALE

SUMMERHILL

MOUNT DENNIS

NORTH ETOBICOKE

LEASIDE

YONGE EGLINTON DAVISVILLE

ROSEDALE

YORKVILLE

PEARSON AIRPORT

RUNNYMEDE

JUNCTION

BROCKTON

HIGH PARK KINGSWAY

BLOORDALE

ISLINGTON NORSEMAN HEIGHTS /SUNNYLEA QUEENSWAY

LONG BRANCH

REGENT BALDWIN VILLAGE

LIBERTY VILLAGE

KING / SPADINA

BILLY BISHOP AIRPORT

TORONTO ISLAND

SOUTH ETOBICOKE ALDERWOOD

PALMERSTON / LITTLE ITALY

DOWNTOWN PARKDALE

MARKLAND WOOD

ST. CABBAGETOWN JAMESTOWN

KENSINGTON TRINITY BELLWOODS

BLOOR WEST/ SWANSEA

EATONVILLE

R

THE ANNEX

HARWOOD

NEW TORONTO

CORK KING / CAN PARLIAMENT EAST BAYFRONT


189

A B C D

L M N O

R S T

W

Central Districts Normal Districts Outside Districts Big Settlements Cultural Center Area Business District Secondary Central Districts CORNELL

Institutional Area Tower Archipelago Neighbourhood Reserves New Urban Patches

MARKHAM CENTRE

Industrial Zone Airports and Infrastructure

MILLIKEN

Green MALVERN

ROUGE

VILLAGE

Water

L’AMOREAUX

Y VILLAGE

WEST HILL / HIGHLAND CREEK

AGINCOURT PLEASANTVIEW / BRIDLEWOOD

Modern Metropolis

WHITE HAVEN PORT UNION

SCARBOROUGH TOWN CENTRE

Retail Concentrations BENDALE PARKWOODS

HIGHLAND CREEK

DORSET PARK

MANSE VALLEY

Administrative Buildings

WEXFORD SCARBOROUGH GUILDWOOD VICTORIA VILLAGE DON MILLS

SCARBOROUGH VILLAGE

WOBURN

GOLDEN MILE CLIFFSIDE

PARKVIEW HILLS WOODBINE GARDENS

FLEMINGDON PARK

CRESCENT TOWN

EAST YORK DANFORTH VILLAGE

BROADVIEW / PAPE GREENWOOD / COXWELL

RIVERDALE LESLIEVILLE PARK

KTOWN NARY PORT LANDS

T

F G H I J

LOWER DON LANDS

THE BEACH

BIRCH CLIFF

Border

Z


203

Lorem ipsum

52

56

94

60

98

64

68

102

72

106

SPORTS

SPORTS

BUSINESS CLUSTER UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY

NIGHTLIFE

130

134

138

142

146

GLADBECK

C

174

10 1 114 120 126 130

Istanbul Greater Jakarta Jerusalem Lagos Ljublijana

178

34 1 138 142 146 150

London Mexico City Milan Munich New York

182

188

56 1 160 164 170 174

192

Osaka Metropolitan Area Oslo Riga Rome Ruhr Region

198

78 1 182 188 192 198

Sofia Tel Aviv-Yafo Toronto West Midlands Zurich


202

24

Size Comparison

28

34

0 5 km

40

76

44

80

110

48

86

114

120

90

126

Ide

EIMURI STAPRIŅI KALNGALE

VECĀĶI

ATARI

ĀDAŽI

TRĪSCIEMS MANGAĻSALA

VECDAUGAVA

JAUNCIEMS DAUGAVGRĪVA

VECMILGRĀVIS BOLDERĀJA

BALTEZERS MĪLGRĀVIS SUŽI

BUKULTI

SUŽI

MAKSTENIEKI

PRIEDKALNE

KUNDZIŅSALA

SARKANDAUGAVA

MEŽAPARKS

BERĢI

BERĢI

UPESCIEMS MEŽĀRES

LIEPEZERS

ČIEKURKALNS JUGLA

TEIKA

SKANSTE

DIŽBĀRDI PĒTERSALA

SUNĪŠI BREKŠI

BRASA

AMATNIEKI

MEŽCIEMS

IĻĢUCIEMS

SPILVE IMANTA

GRĪZIŅKALNS DZIRCIEMS

PURVCIEMS

MUCENIEKI

ĶĪPSALA

BABĪTE

AVOTI

OLD TOWN ĀGENSKALNA PRIEDES

ZOLITŪDE BEBERBEĶI

DREILIŅI

DĀRZCIEMS

ULBROKA

BEBERI PĻAVNIEKI

MASKAVAS FORŠTATE

PLESKODĀLE

VĀLODZES

ĀGENSKALNS

DREILIŅI

SPICE LĪČI LIDOSTA

TORŅAKALNS

MĀRUPE

LUCAVSALA

SKULTE

ACONE

BIERIŅI MĀRUPE ATGĀZENE

ĶENGARAGS BIŠUMUIŽA

0

2mi

CEKULE ŠĶIROTAVA

ZIEPNIEKKALNS MĀRUPE SAURIEŠI

TĒRAUDI

0

1km

2.5km

MĀRUPE

VALDLAUČI

KRUSTKALNI

RŪĶI LAPENIEKI

RĀMAVA

JAUNMĀRUPE BALOŽI

150

24 28 34 40 44

156

Addis Ababa Amsterdam Athens Bangkok Barcelona

48 52 56 60 64

160

Beijing Beirut Belfast Bogotá Budapest

68 72 76 80 86

Buenos Aires Cairo Cape Town Chicago Copenhagen

KATLAKALNS

GETLIŅI

164

90 94 98 102 106

Dar es Salaam Dublin Frankfurt am Main Guangzhou Houston

170


204

City Index

6 9

18 27

5

36

40 29

33 16

2

34

19 30

26 11

32

7

35

37 3

13

22

8 38 24

20

4

25

1

23

17

14

# 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

City Addis Ababa Amsterdam Athens Bangkok Barcelona Belfast Beijing Beirut Bogota Budapest Buenos Aires Cairo Capetown Chicago Copenhagen Dar es Salaam Dublin Frankfurt am Main Guangzhou Houston

Country Ethiopia Netherlands Greece Thailand Spain Northern Ireland China Lebanon Colombia Hungary Argentina Egypt South Africa USA Denmark Tanzania Ireland Germany China USA

Capital Addis Ababa Amsterdam Athens Bangkok Madrid Belfast Beijing Beirut Bogota Budapest Buenos Aires Cairo Capetown Washington, DC Copenhagen Dodoma Dublin Berlin Beijing Washington, DC

Coordinates 09°01‘N 38°44‘E 52°22‘N 04°54‘E 37°59‘N 23°43‘E 13°45‘N 100°29‘E 41°23‘N 02°11‘E 54°35‘N 05°55‘W 39°55‘N 116°23‘E 33°53‘N 35°30‘E 04°42‘N 74°04‘W 07°29‘N 19°03‘E 34°36‘S 58°22‘W 30°02‘N 31°14‘E 33°55‘S 18°25‘E 41°53‘N 87°38‘W 55°40‘N 12°34‘E 06°48‘S 39°17‘E 53°20‘N 06°15‘W 50°07‘N 08°41‘E 03°08‘N 113°16‘E 29°45‘N 95°22‘W

City Inhabitants 3,380,000 850,000 665,000 8,280,000 1,620,000 335,000 21,700,000 362,000 8,080,000 1,760,000 2,890,000 12,000,000 435,000 2,700,000 600,000 5,500,000 555,000 740,000 14,045,000 2,300,000

Area km2 527 220 412 1,568 101 92 16,800 20 1587 525 203 528 400 606 86 1,393 115 248 3,843 1625


205

39 15

31

21

28

10

12

# 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

City Istanbul Greater Jakarta Jerusalem Lagos Ljubljana London Mexico City Milan Munich New York Osaka (OMA) Oslo Riga Rome Ruhr Region Sofia Tal Aviv-Yafo Toronto West Midlands Zurich

Country Turkey Indonesia Israel Nigeria Slovenia England Mexico Italy Germany United States Japan Norway Latvia Italy Germany Bulgaria Israel Canada England Switzerland

Capital Ankara Jakarta Jerusalem Abuja Ljubljana London Mexico City Rome Berlin Washington, DC Tokyo Oslo Riga Rome Berlin Sofia Jerusalem Ottawa London Bern

Coordinates 41°01‘N 28°58‘E 06°12‘S 106°49‘E 31°47‘N 35°13‘E 06°27‘N 03°24‘E 46°03‘N 14°30‘E 51°30‘N 00°07‘W 09°26‘N 99°08‘W 45°28‘N 09°11‘E 48°08‘N 11°34‘E 40°42‘N 74°00‘W 34°41‘N 135°30‘E 59°55‘N 10°44‘E 56°56‘N 24°06‘E 41°54‘N 12°30‘E 51°30‘N 07°30‘E 42°70‘N 23°33‘E 32°04‘N 34°47‘E 43°42‘N 79°24‘W 52°28‘N 01°53‘W 47°22‘N 08°33‘E

City Inhabitants 15,030,000 30,000,000 880,000 16,000,000 290,000 8,790,000 8,920,000 1,350,000 1,540,000 8,850,000 11,500,000 670,000 640,000 3,770,000 5,100,000 1,240,000 440,000 2,730,000 2,760,000 400,000

Area km2 5512 6,300 125 1,171 275 1,572 1,485 182 310 784 2,100 454 324 1,285 4440 492 52 630 900 92


206

Bibliography

Image Credits

Introduction Abercrombie, P. and J. Forshaw, County of London Plan (London: MacMillan & Co, 1943) Abercrombie, P., Town and Country Planning (London: Oxford University Press, 1933) Abercrombie, P., Greater London Plan 1944 (London: HMSO, 1945) Alexander, C. et al., A City Is Not a Tree (Portland: Sustasis Press, 2015)

Introduction Fig. 1 Antiqua Print Gallery/ Alamy Stock Photo Fig. 2 Downloaded from: http://c590298.r98.cf2. rackcdn.com/FZ7_106.JPG (accesseed 20 March 2018)

Batty, M. and S. Marshall, ‘The Evolution of Cities: Geddes, Abercrombie and the New Physicalism’, Town Planning Review, vol. 80 (2009) no. 6, 551–574 Brody, J., ‘The Neighborhood Unit Concept and the Shaping of Land Planning in the United States 1912–1968’, Journal of Urban Design, vol. 18 (2013) no. 3, 340–362 Carter, E.J and Goldfinger, E., The County of London Plan, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1945) Christiaanse, K., ‘The Grand Projèt: Creating Urban Centralities in Distinct Contexts’, Harvard Design Magazine, no. 37 (2014), 118–123 Christiaanse, K. ‘Interventions in Contemporary Urban Situations’, speach at the 5th International Conference IFoU Singapore (2011) Clapson, M., Invincible Green Suburbs, Brave New Towns: Social Change and Urban Dispersal in Postwar Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998) Clapson, M. and P.J. Larkham (eds.), The Blitz and Its Legacy: Wartime Destruction to Post-War Reconstruction (London: Routeledge, 2013) Dehaene, M., ‘Surveying and Comprehensive Planning: The Coordination of Knowledge in the Wartime Plans of Patrick Abercombie and Max Lock’, in: I.B. White (ed.), Man-Made Future: Planning, Education and Design in Mid-Twentieth Century Britain (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), 38–58 Dehaene, M., ‘Urban Lessons for the Modern Planner: Patrick Abercrombie and the Study of Urban Development’, The Town Planning Review, vol. 75 (2004) no. 1, 1–30 Geddes, P., Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics (London: Williams, 1915) Gould, J., Plymouth: Vision of a Modern City (Swindon: English Heritage, 2010) Hall, P., ‘London’s Motorways’, in: Great Planning Disasters (Berkley: University of California Press, 1980), 56–86 Howard, E., Garden Cities of To-Morrow (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co, 1902) Larkham, P.J., ‘The Post-War Reconstruction Planning of London: A Wider Perspective’, Working Paper series (Centre for Environment and Society Research, 2011) no. 8 Lemes des Oliveira, F., ‘Abercrombie’s Ggreen-Wedge Vision for London: The County of London Plan 1943 and the Greater London Plan 1944’, Town Planning Review, vol. 86 (2015) no. 5 Mort, F., ‘Fantasies of Metropolitan Life: Planning London in the 1940s’, Journal of British Studies, vol. 43 (2014) no. 1, 120–152 Mumford, L., ‘The Neighbourhood and the Neighbourhood Unit’, The Town Planning Review, vol. 24 (1954) no. 4 Orlans, H., Stevenage: A Sociological Study of a New Town (London: Routledge, 1998) Perry, C., The Neighbourhood Unit (1929) (London: Reprinted Routledge / Thoemmes, 1998) Posener, J. (ed.), Ebenezer Howard: Gartenstädte von morgen: Das Buch und seine Geschichte, Bauwelt Fundamente, Band 21 (Berlin / Frankfurt am Mein / Vienna: Ullstein, 1968) Raynsford, A., ‘From Urban Village to Metropolitan Picturesque: Precincts, Townscapes, and the “Cellular” Planning of World War II London’, Paper delivered at the 1st meeting of the EAHN, Guimarães, Portugal, 2010. Available online at www.anthonyraynsford. net/Raynsford_Metropolitan_Picturesque_EAHN.pdf (accessed 22 February 2018) Sharifi, A., ‘From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development’, Sustainable Cities and Society (2015). Online. Available HTTP: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282075470_From_Garden_City_to_ Eco-urbanism_The_quest_for_sustainable_neighborhood_development (accessed 22 February 2018) Smith, D.A., ‘Polycentricity and Sustainable Urban Form: An Intra-Urban Study of Accessibility, Employment and Travel Sustainability for the Strategic Planning of the London Region’, PhD thesis (University College London, 2011) Film The Proud City, a Plan for London (London: Greenpark productions, 1946) Available online at https://archive.org/details/ProudCity (accessed 22 February 2018)

Athens Fig. 1 Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Ernst Curtius and Johann A. Kaupert (eds.), Karten von Attika (Berlin: Reimer, 1903), CC-BY-SA-3.0, Downloaded from: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ diglit/curtius1895a/0003 Fig. 2 Google Earth imagery, edited by Eirini Kasioumi and Eleni Papadaki Fig. 3 T. Maloutas and S. Spyrellis. ‘Vertical Social Segregation in Athenian Spartment Buildings’ (Athens Social Atlas, 2015). Downloaded from: http://www. athenssocialatlas.gr/en/ article/vertical-segregation. Barcelona Fig. 1 Revista Ciudad Territorio, N2 / 1977, p.92. Jerusalem Fig. 1 Nilly R Harag Toronto Fig. 1 Courtesy of Toronto Public Library Fig. 2 Courtesy of McGill University Fig. 3 Courtesy of City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 220, Series 10, Item 110 Fig. 4 Courtesy of City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 220, Series 10, Item 362 New York Fig. 1 Eric Fischer, in the style of Bill Rankin’s map of Chicago. Base map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA. Tel Aviv-Yafo Fig. 1 Strategic Plan for Tel Aviv-Yafo, Derman Verbakel Architecture Fig. 2 Strategic Plan for Tel Aviv-Yafo, Derman Verbakel Architecture


207

Data source City Index

1 Inhabitants 2 Area Addis Ababa 1, 2 https://knoema.com/atlas/ Ethiopia/Addis-Ababa (accessed 13 February 2018) Amsterdam 1 https://www.iamsterdam.com/ en/about-amsterdam/ overview/facts-and-figures (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://opendata.cbs.nl/ statline/#/CBS/nl/ (accessed 13 February 2018) Athens 1, 2 http://www.aviewoncities. com/athens/athensfacts.htm (accessed 13 February 2018) Bangkok 1 http://worldpopulationreview. com/world-cities/ bangkok-population/ (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://web.archive.org/ web/20110705201641/ http://www.bangkok.go.th/th/ page/index.php?&153Geography_of_Bangkok &l=en (accessed 13 February 2018) Barcelona 1, 2 http://www.idescat.cat/ emex/?lang=en&id=080193 (accessed 13 February 2018) Belfast 1, 2 http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/ council/Yourcouncil/ yourcouncil.aspx (accessed 13 February 2018) Beijing 1 http://www.keepeek.com/ Digital-Asset-Management/ oecd/urban-rural-andregional-development/oecdurban-policy-reviews-­china2015_9789264230040-en (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Beijing#cite_notemofcom-2 (accessed 13 February 2018) Beirut 1 http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=city+population&d= POP&f=tableCode%3a240 (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 http://www.newworldency clopedia.org/entry/Beirut (accessed 13 February 2018) Bogota 1 http://concejodebogota. gov.co/cbogota/site/edic/ base/port/inicio.php (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 http://www.newworld encyclopedia.org/ entry/Bogota,_Colombia (accessed 13 February 2018) Budapest 1, 2 https://www.britannica.com/ place/Budapest (accessed 13 February 2018) Buenos Aires 1 https://web.archive.org/ web/20120101220047/ http://www.censo2010. indec.gov.ar:80/preliminares/ cuadro_totalpais.asp (accessed 13 February 2018)

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Buenos_Aires (accessed 13 February 2018) Cairo 1 http://worldpopulation review.com/world-cities/ cairo-population/ (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Cairo (accessed 13 February 2018) Capetown 1, 2 https://census2011.adrianfrith. com/place/199041 (accessed 13 February 2018) Chicago 1 http://worldpopulationreview. com/us-cities/chicagopopulation/ (accessed February 2018) 2 https://www.cityofchicago. org/city/en/about/facts.html (accessed February 2018) Copenhagen 1 http://www.statbank.dk/BY1 (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 http://www.statbank.dk/ FRLD113 (accessed 13 February 2018) Dar es Salaam 1 http://tanzania.open dataforafrica.org/ntmsom/ population-projection-oftanzania-2006 (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://web.archive.org/ web/20131105105231/ http://www.nbs.go.tz/ takwimu/references/ Abstract2011.zip (accessed 13 February 2018) Dublin 1, 2 http://citypopulation.de/ Ireland-Cities.html (accessed 13 February 2018) Frankfurt 1, 2 http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/ (accessed 13 February 2018) Guangzhou 1 http://worldpopulation review.com/world-cities/ guangzhou-population/ (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://www.britannica.com/ place/Guangzhou (accessed 13 February 2018) Houston 1, 2 https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ houstoncitytexas/ PST045216 (accessed 13 February 2018) Istanbul 1 http://worldpopulation review.com/world-cities/ istanbul-population/ (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 http://www.greatistanbul. com/numbers.html (accessed 13 February 2018) Jakarta 1 http://worldpopulation review.com/world-cities/

jakarta-population/ (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Jakarta (accessed 13 February 2018) Jerusalem 1, 2 http://en.jerusaleminstitute. org.il/?cmd=statistic.564#. WoMEXWaX9Bw (accessed 13 February 2018) Lagos 1, 2 http://www.demographia.com/ db-worldua.pdf (accessed 13 February 2018) Ljubljana 1, 2 https://www.citypopulation.de/ php/slovenia-admin.php? adm2id=061 (accessed 13 February 2018) London 1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/ peoplepopulationand community/populatio nandmigration/ populationestimates/ datasets/population estimatesforukengland andwalesscotlandand northernireland (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ London (accessed 13 February 2018) Mexico City 1 https://web.archive.org/ web/20140130073310/ http://cuentame.inegi.gob. mx:80/monografias/ informacion/df/default. aspx?tema=me&e=09 (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://www.citypopulation. de/php/mexico-metro.php (accessed 14 February 2018) Milan 1, 2 https://www.citypopulation.de/ php/italy-lombardia.php? cityid=015146 (accessed 14 February 2018) Munich 1, 2 https://www.statistikdaten. bayern.de/genesis (accessed 14 February 2018) New York 1, 2 https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/NY (accessed 14 February 2018) Osaka Metropolitan Area 1, 2 http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/ contents/wdu020/enjoy/en/ overview/content_CityProfile. html (accessed 14 February 2018) Oslo 1, 2 https://www.ssb.no/en/ (accessed 14 February 2018) Riga 1, 2 http://data.csb.gov.lv/pxweb/ en/ (accessed 14 February 2018) Rome 1 http://www.comune.roma.it/ web-resources/cms/ documents/ Popolazione_2016_rev.pdf (accessed 14 February 2018)

2 https://www.britannica.com/ place/Rome (accessed 14 February 2018) Ruhr Region 1, 2 http://www.metropoleruhr.de/ land-leute/daten-fakten/lageund-geografie.html (accessed 14 February 2018) Sofia 1 http://www.nsi.bg/nrnm/ show9.php?sid=4448&ezik=en (accessed 14 February 2018) 2 http://www.guide-bulgaria. com/SW/sofia-city?t=sizes (accessed 14 February 2018) Tel Aviv-Yafo 1 http://www.cbs.gov.il/ishuvim/ reshimalefishem.pdf (accessed 14 February 2018) 2, 3, 4 https://www.britannica.com/ place/Tel-Aviv-Yafo (accessed 14 February 2018) Toronto 1, 2 http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/ census-recensement/ 2016/dp-pd/prof/details/ (accessed 14 February 2018) West Midlands 1 https://www.birmingham.gov. uk/info/50065/ population_and_ census/1003/population_in_ birmingham (accessed 13 February 2018) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Birmingham (accessed 13 February 2018) Zurich 1 https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/ portal/en/index/ portraet_der_stadt_ zuerich/zahlen_u_fakten.html (accessed 14 February 2018) 2 https://www.zuerich.com/ sites/default/files/1707 _media_text_zurich_in_brief_ en.pdf (accessed 14 February 2018)


208

Editors Mirjam Züger, Kees Christiaanse Authors (Texts and Maps) Felix Heisel and Raphael Disler Addis Ababa, Bart Reuser and Mark Jongerius Amsterdam, Eirini Kasioumi and Eleni Papadaki Athens, Sonja Berthold and Apiradee Kaseemsook Bangkok Melisa Pesoa, Joaquín Sabaté and Jordi Franquesa Barcelona, Zhu Wenyi and Liu Pinghao Beijing, Philipp Misselwitz and Iman Charara Beirut, David Burbano and Natalia Ramírez Bogota, Domonkos Wettstein Budapest, Julián Varas and Sofía Moneta Buenos Aires, Charlotte Malterre-Barthes and Roxanne De Raeymaecker Cairo, Heinrich Wolff and Temba Jauch Cape Town, Vedran Mimica, Jorge Serra and Agata Siemionow Chicago, Deane Simpson and Cecilie Overgaard Rasmussen Copenhagen, Gunter Klix and Mariam Abbas Daar es Salam, Michael McGarry and MArch Students at Queen’s University Belfast Dublin, Belfast, Martina Baum, Diana Böhm, Anna Kübler and Thorsten Stelter Frankfurt, Francesca Frassoldati and Anqi Ni Guangzhou, Sarah Whiting and Sara Jacinto Houston, Alp Arisoy Istanbul, Devisari Tunas, Miya Irawati and Stephen Cairns Greater Jakarta, Nilly R. Harag, Asaf Bivas and Amnon Direktor Jerusalem, Fabienne Hoelzel and Aro Ismaila Lagos, Tadej Glažar, Marijana Krizmanić, Manca Košir and Jan Kozinc Ljubljana, Peter Bishop London, Jose Castillo Olea, Saidee Springall, Monica Arzoz and Annika Ussel Mexico City, Cino Zucchi and Giulia Novati Milan, Roman Leonhartsberger and Mark Michaeli Munich, Georgeen Theodore and Thomas Dores New York, Jan Polívka and Svenja Krings Osaka Metropolitan Area, Marianne Skjulhaug and Miles Hamaker Oslo, Sandra Treija and Hilda Treija Riga, Stefano de Martino and Alexander Gogl Rome, Anne Söfker-Rieniets Ruhr Region, Georgi Stanishev, Greta Dimitrova-Mandova, Atanas Kovachev and Igor Yankulov Sofia, Els Verbakel and Adva Matar Tel Aviv-Yafo, Mark Sterling and Sabrina Yuen Toronto, Daniel Bläser West Midlands, Mirjam Züger Zurich.

Copy-editing InOtherWords, D’Laine Camp Book design SJG / Joost Grootens, Silke Koeck Map editing Mirjam Züger, Jil Kugler, SJG / Joost Grootens, Julie da Silva Printing and Lithography NPN Drukkers Typeface Plain, optimo.ch Production Brecht Bleeker nai010 publishers Publisher Marcel Witvoet nai010 publishers This publication was produced at the Institute for Urban Design, Prof. Kees Christiaanse, ETH Zurich © 2018 authors, nai010 publishers, Rotterdam. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. For works of visual artists affiliated with a CISAC-organization the copyrights have been settled with Pictoright in Amsterdam. © 2018, c / o Pictoright Amsterdam Although every effort was made to find the copyright holders for the illustrations used, it has not been possible to trace them all. Interested parties are requested to contact nai010 publishers, Mauritsweg 23, 3012 JR Rotterdam, the Netherlands. nai010 publishers is an internationally orientated publisher—and distributing books in the fields of architecture, urbanism, art and design. www.nai010.com nai010 books are available internationally at selected bookstores and from the following distribution partners: North, Central and South America —Artbook | D.A.P., New York, USA, dap@dapinc.com Rest of the world—Idea Books, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, idea@ideabooks.nl For general questions, please contact nai010 publishers directly at sales@nai010.com or visit our website www.nai010.com for further information. Printed and bound in the Netherlands ISBN 978-94-6208-433-9 Also available as e-book The Potato Plan Collection (pdf) ISBN 978-94-6208-446-9

Acknowledgments Inspired by Sir Leslie Patrick Abercrombie and John Henry Forshaw’s ‘Functional and Social Analysis’ survey plan of London 1943, this book comprises 40 Potato Plans from all around the world, created by local architects, urban designers and scholars. To become truly representative plans, we had to rely on local authors, because a plan cannot be drawn without thorough knowledge of the respective city. Therefore our gratitude goes out to the extraordinary performance of all the authors, co-authors and visual artists involved—they made the creation of this collection possible. The enormous effort they voluntarily put into their contribution is invaluable. Furthermore, our sincere thanks go to all the members of the Chair of Architecture and Urban Design of Prof. K. Christiaanse at the ETH Zurich for their intellectual support. We would like to express special thanks to Simon Kretz for the various rounds of discussion and the critical examination of the process and the manuscript. Finally, this cartographic book would not have been possible without the creative and graphic input from Joost Grootens, who was genuinely the best book designer for this collection.


The Potato Plan Collection


This book celebrates Patrick Abercrombie and J. H. Forshaw’s renowned ‘Potato Plan’ and assesses its potential as an analytical tool for contemporary metropolitan territories. Originally drawn in 1943 as part of the County of London Plan, Abercrombie’s ‘Social and Functional Analysis’ poetically illustrates the city as an agglomeration of distinct communities, clusters, and centralities. The Potato Plan Collection comprises 40 Potato Plans from all around the globe, each being a reinterpretation of the original by local architects, urban designers and scholars. As a whole, the collection offers a new perspective on the structure of regional configurations in the urban age.

Nai010 publishers / www.nai010.com

Addis Ababa Amsterdam Athens Bangkok Barcelona

Felix Heisel, Raphael Disler Bart Reuser, Mark Jongerius Eirini Kasioumi, Eleni Papadaki Sonja Berthold, Apiradee Kaseemsook Melisa Pesoa, Joaquín Sabaté, Jordi Franquesa Beijing Zhu Wenyi, Liu Pinghao Beirut Philipp Misselwitz, Iman Charara Belfast Michael McGarry Bogotá David Burbano, Natalia Ramírez Budapest Domonkos Wettstein Buenos Aires Julián Varas, Sofía Moneta Cairo Charlotte Malterre-Barthes, Roxanne De Raeymaecker Cape Town Heinrich Wolff, Temba Jauch Chicago Vedran Mimica, Jorge Serra, Agata Siemionow Copenhagen Deane Simpson, Cecilie Overgaard Rasmussen Dar es Salaam Mariam Abbas, Gunter Klix Dublin Michael McGarry Frankfurt am Main Martina Baum, Diana Böhm, Anna Kübler, Thorsten Stelter Guangzhou Francesca Frassoldati, Anqi Ni Houston Sarah Whiting, Sara Jacinto Istanbul Alp Arisoy Greater Jakarta Devisari Tunas, Miya Irawati, Stephen Cairns Jerusalem Nilly R Harag, Asaf Bivas, Amnon Direktor Lagos Fabienne Hoelzel, Aro Ismaila Ljubljana Tadej Glažar, Marijana Krizmanić, Manca Košir, Jan Kozinc London Peter Bishop Mexico City Jose Castillo Olea, Saidee Springall, Monica Arzoz, Annika Ussel Milan Cino Zucchi, Giulia Novati Munich Roman Leonhartsberger, Mark Michaeli New York Georgeen Theodore, Thomas Dores Osaka Metropolitan Area Jan Polívka, Svenja Krings Oslo Marianne Skjulhaug, Miles Hamaker Riga Sandra Treija, Hilda Treija Rome Stefano de Martino, Alexander Gogl Ruhr Region Anne Söfker-Rieniets Sofia Georgi Stanishev, Greta Dimitrova-Mandova, Atanas Kovachev, Igor Yankulov Tel Aviv-Yafo Els Verbakel, Adva Matar Toronto Mark Sterling, Sabrina Yuen West Midlands Daniel Bläser Zurich Mirjam Züger

Profile for nai010

Potato Plan Collection  

> An updated depiction of contemporary urban analysis, inspired by the great Patrick Abercrombie > Unique plans and essays of 40 cities acro...

Potato Plan Collection  

> An updated depiction of contemporary urban analysis, inspired by the great Patrick Abercrombie > Unique plans and essays of 40 cities acro...

Advertisement

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded