Good Urbanism - Bad Urbanism
100 years apart, two shopping malls set up examples of good and bad urbanism.
Built in a car-less city of 500.000 people (Naples) in 1887 and accessible on foot and horse only, Umberto’s shopping mall relied on the compactness and population density of the surrounding district for its market catch basin. A harmonious building in classical style embellishes the city centre close to the palace and other fine institutions. Density, compactness, foot accessibility and classical harmony - good Urbanism - are all found in this building.
Built in a city of 2 million (Toronto), with cars, railways, highways and subways in 1977, the Eaton shopping mall relies on a catch basin for its viability that is orders of magnitude larger than pedestrians or horses(?) could reach. It depends profoundly on all modern transportation means for its survival. As a modern building, it has none of the classical fine details, or “harmony”, and appears “messy”. All the signs and sins of bad Urbanism are there: Car, subway, and tram dependence, mega-shopping and dissonant architecture. Add to this the disruption of the street grid and the repudiation of Main Street (Younge) by not facing it and you have the makings of an anti-urbanist structure.
Good Urbanism - Bad Urbanism
100 years apart, two shopping malls set up examples of good and bad urbanism.
Built in a car-less city of 500.000 people (Naples) in 1887 and accessible on foot and horse only, Umberto’s shopping mall relied on the compactness and population density of the surrounding district for its market catch basin. A harmonious building in classical style embellishes the city centre close to the palace and other fine institutions. Density, compactness, foot accessibility and classical harmony - good Urbanism - are all found in this building.
Built in a city of 2 million (Toronto), with cars, railways, highways and subways in 1977, the Eaton shopping mall relies on a catch basin for its viability that is orders of magnitude larger than pedestrians or horses(?) could reach. It depends profoundly on all modern transportation means for its survival. As a modern building, it has none of the classical fine details, or “harmony”, and appears “messy”. All the signs and sins of bad Urbanism are there: Car, subway, and tram dependence, mega-shopping and dissonant architecture. Add to this the disruption of the street grid and the repudiation of Main Street (Younge) by not facing it and you have the makings of an anti-urbanist structure.