Does building change city futures?

The after-dinner discussion addressed the following question: ‘Can building change the destiny of world cities?’ Like most such debating-style propositions, this one was full of ambiguities and subsidiary points for discussion, not least the question of what defines a world city. Moreover, the concept of destiny excludes a fundamental change of direction or outcome; as Conrad put it in his novel Lord Jim: ‘As if each our destiny were not graven in imperishable characters on the face of a rock’.

There is then the issue of what constitutes building. Does it imply architecture alone, or would engineering and infrastructure projects be included? Still, these points can make for lively discussion, and since no vote was planned at the end of dinner, nit-picking debating points were kept to a minimum.

Broadly speaking two points of view emerged. One was that even though a city may become famous as a result of a particular development, building or engineering project, such things could only arise from the context created by the city itself. Imposition from above could produce an object, but that could not change the future of the city on its own.

The other view suggested that the generation of significant projects could indeed turn the future of a city, partly because its could change external perceptions of it, partly because it could change the psychological characteristics, if one can put it that way, of the city and its citizens.

One example given on the night was the Eiffel Tower, whose defiant modernity was in stark contrast to medieval Paris and the Haussmann city plan. One might have added that the Piano and Rogers Pompidou Centre had a similar impact, having aroused as much controversy and indeed hostility as M Eiffel’s grand project.

Another example (not mentioned on the night) would be Sydney Opera House. There was little in the city’s DNA to suggest that it would become home to one of the wonders of the modern world; however, the determination of political leaders to make a statement about the cultural aspirations of this young city/country, plus lottery funding, resulted in the iconic architectural result which has been the city’s key landmark ever since. The successful Sydney Olympics bid benefited hugely from the worldwide recognition of that ‘scrum-of-nuns’ logo.

Talking of the Olympics, one cannot deny the impact they had on Barcelona, which re-invented itself for the occasion from dusty provincial backwater to a world city of architecture and design; there are high hopes that the London Games of 2012 will trigger further revitalisation of the east side of London, balancing the damage done to it as a century-long consequence of the industrial revolution.

In both Barcelona and London, infrastructure investment, which will last for at least a century after the Games, has been critical to the future development of the city. If one looks to precedent as to the importance of engineering works, one needs to look no further than the embanking of the Thames in central London in the 1860s, by the great engineer Joseph Bazalgette. His transformation of an open sewer to the Thames we know today was prompted by smell (the ‘Great Stink’), and fear of cholera. The embanking changed London forever, not for the first time as a result of health concerns rather than aesthetic planning.

There was a political consequence of Bazalgette’s work too: the client body which commissioned him, the Metropolitan Board of Works, eventually transformed into the London County Council, the democratic authority which governed London from 1889 to 1963, before expanding to become the Greater London Council (now the Greater London Authority).

Architecture, engineering and planning are integral to the life of any city, and their absence, for example on the fringes of cities in developing countries where the flight from the land is sometimes creating insuperable problems for city authorities, simply shows that the host city has not prepared itself for what we now know to be inevitable.

In 1950, twice as many people lived on the land as inhabited cities. Crossover has just taken place, and by 2050, the land/city population proportions will have reversed. Planners, architects and politicians had better understand the consequences for the built environment – or city destinies will only involve dealing with chaos.