The Language of Cities by Deyan Sudjic
The Intersection of History, Culture, and Technology in Urban Development
What is a city?
Most of us now live in cities. But what makes a city? Is it a place or an idea? How should we define the city as it evolves today? What are the underlying forces that shape the urban spaces around us, from their buildings to their names, from the power of crowds to why being a Londoner or New Yorker can offer a sense of identity greater than any other?
Deyan Sudjic looks into the complexities of urban life, highlighting how cities are dynamic and vibrant entities that communicate through their design and structure, ultimately influencing the human experience.
The Evolving Nature of Cities
Historically, cities have reflected the ideals and control mechanisms of their creators, from the imposing architecture of authoritarian regimes to the open and tolerant public spaces where people of different backgrounds can coexist and interact. Amsterdam, for example, is designed to encourage diversity, inclusivity and social interaction. Cities like Moscow and Beijing, on the other hand, were built in such a way as to exert control, with large, imposing buildings and public squares that overshadow the individual and make people feel subservient to the power of the state. It’s not a recent phenomenon; since ancient times, ruling classes have feared the power of the masses and have done all that they could to suppress it.
Sudjic argues that cities are not static entities but constantly evolving, shaped as much by ideas as other forces, ranging from historical and cultural influences to technological advances and power dynamics. The Industrial Revolution was a pivotal turning point, giving rise to modern metropolises that transformed urban landscapes. At their core, cities are wealth-creating machines that attract people by offering a multitude of opportunities and choices. They thrive in diversity, enabling innovation and creativity, and cultivating a sense of community while also allowing a space for personal anonymity. Yet, in many cities today, some factors discourage gatherings and freedom of expression. Surveillance technologies, crowd control strategies and legal restrictions on the right to protest challenge the democratic ideals that cities strive to uphold. This tension between top-down control and bottom-up democratic principles is a constant force that shapes modern cities.
Successful cities provide security, safety, freedom of choice, and essential services, like housing, healthcare and transportation. While market forces play a role, Sudjic criticizes the privatization trends that began under leaders like Margaret Thatcher, arguing that “a city is too complex a system for the market to function on its own to deliver desirable results. The market cannot deliver adequate quantities of affordable housing unaided, as London’s current crisis demonstrates.” Effective urban governance requires a balance of individual ambition, political checks and balances, and legislation to address shared needs. He writes:
“A city needs a form of organization that allows its citizens the maximum freedom to do whatever they want, without negatively impacting others. These are freedoms that require institutions strong enough to be able to protect them.”
Shaping the Urban Landscape
Deyan Sudjic examines how the top-down planning approaches of influential figures like Georges Haussmann, Walt Disney, and Robert Moses sought to impose order and control in cities at the expense of existing communities and democratic values. The true identity of a city is rooted in its democratic processes, which represent the diverse voices and interests of its citizens. Grand visions and top-down planning approaches fail to embrace the complexity and democratic principles that are fundamental to the essence of a thriving city.
However, their grand visions fell short in their inability to embrace the complexity and the democratic principles that are fundamental to the essence of a city.
“What, none of them, Haussmann, Disney or Moses did not see was that creating a city was more complicated than building a university campus, a hospital or a business park. While a holiday resort might have some of the ingredients of a city—places to work, eat, sleep, shop and learn- in the end, is not a city. They did not understand or believe in the essential role of democratic government in the making of a city and its day-to-day functioning. Without democratic accountability, there is no scrutiny of objectives or their achievement. There is no chance to reflect on the aspirations of the poor, or the marginalized, or to ensure that public money is spent honestly.”
In contrast, Sudjic endorses the ideas of Aldo Rossi, the Italian architect and theorist, who viewed cities as “the collective memory of its people and, like memory, it is associated with objects and places.” Rossi understood cities as organic, evolving entities shaped by the accumulation of urban elements like houses, factories, parks, etc over time.
The Case of Silicon Valley
Deyan Sudjic offers a unique view of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is, of course, not a city in the traditional sense of a city, as it lacks many of the key characteristics that define a genuine urban centre. He portrays it as a multifaceted urban entity that defies traditional city definitions, shaped by its economic power, innovative spirit, and unique socio-economic challenges. It is a decentralised and dispersed urban structure, consisting of corporate campuses, office parks, and residential suburbs linked by highways and roads designed for cars rather than pedestrians.
Sudjic draws parallels between Silicon Valley and Manchester during the first Industrial Revolution, pointing out how both regions became epicentres of technological and economic change. But while Manchester has a long, rich industrial history with a diverse economy, Silicon Valley is heavily focused on high-tech and internet-based industries. The social dynamics in the two cities are also different. Silicon Valley’s concentration of high-tech industries has created a unique socio-economic landscape where the extreme wealth generated by companies such as Apple, Meta, and Google contrasts sharply with widespread poverty, racial discrimination, and systemic inequalities. This disparity is evident in the living conditions of many employees, some of which are forced to live in garages or sleep in their cars because of the high cost of living.
Rising Skies, Rising Prices: London's Transformation
Since I live in London, I'd like to expand a little more on its significant transformation over the past decades. London, with its vibrant culture, cosmopolitan atmosphere, and diverse job opportunities, has long been a magnet for ambitious, skilled, and creative individuals from around the world. This steady influx of young and gifted people has contributed significantly to London’s economic and cultural success.
The city's landscape has been reshaped by state-of-the-art skyscrapers altering the city's skyline, while regeneration projects have turned forgotten areas into bustling spots. For quite some time, national and international investments in London have played an important role in maintaining Britain as a centre in the international picture, generating wealth that subsided the rest of the country, but also contributing to the overheating of the city’s economy.
The property explosion has made London property unaffordable for all but the wealthiest residents, threatening London’s ability to attract the young and gifted individuals who have been responsible for much of its recent success. At the moment it is unclear how to protect London from its own success, as it grapples with economic inequality, health and social disparities, and the market forces that drive up rents and property prices, contributing to the ongoing issue of gentrification, displacing lower-income residents and altering the character of various neighbourhoods.
The situation has been further exacerbated by Brexit, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. When a frivolous mayor of London (Boris Johnson) and an equally frivolous Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne) agreed to spend £60 million on a garden bridge in London, it is not surprising that some people particularly those outside of London voted to leave the European Union. Coupled with the lies and the broader sense of disillusionment with the political establishment, many voters wished to poke the metropolitan elite in the eye.