Thursday 9 September 2010

NYC/PRS/LDN: A HISTORY LESSON

London is my home, Paris was my home from last winter to summer, and New York is a city I have repeatedly visited. So what I say - in this and everyday conversation - is coloured by this perspective; I am no expert. This largely uninformed ramble is, essentially, a personal analysis of the experience of each city, specifically the psychological and aesthetic effect of the context and traces of history.

New York City lacks in history what London and Paris make up for in abundance. Yet equally, engagement with the architectural contemporary, which New York cannot help but display, is markedly lacking in central Paris. Its main high rises pushed out to the west, the city of Paris has as much a homogenous nineteenth-century traditional aesthetic as Manhattan has a modern one. London, meanwhile, in my opinion, displays an eclecticism that it is not celebrated enough for.

It is vital for a city to cater for the contemporary; architecture is an apt expression of this. But traces of history - cobbled streets, baroque churches and buildings whose functions have changed over time - are just as crucial to a well-rounded city in my view. They supply stories and intrigue. The presence of the past can imbue a place with a sense of importance - and, most importantly, what we tend to call character. Of course New York is not as old as London, but there is still an attitude in Manhattan that, closer to its eastern counterparts like Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur, insists on the new: perpetual regeneration to suit contemporary needs and wants. When I am in New York City, I am all too aware that there is incredibly high demand - and incredibly high supply. This reciprocity will keep increasing as the modern New Yorker expects more and better, more and better, always defining this in contemporary terms. Tell me one thing you cannot get in Manhattan, at any time, in any place. Is modern society progressively characterized by consumerism and convenience? Of course both these are vital to a thriving, successful city - both for its inhabitants and tourist industry - but we need something more. Or perhaps, less.

I find that there is limited mystery in Manhattan - even people will be incredibly forward and bluntly to the point (excuse the tautology), because there is no time (allowed) for ambiguities and questions: the city lives in a perpetual rush, in a drive for perfection - and if you, or a place, does not satisfy a set of particular needs, you will be discarded.

London, with its changing functions, urban myths, psychogeographical tradition, even ghost tours, has this alluring and exciting history - this mystery, which I believe adds a complex texture to the urban fabric; one that is needed for a full city, a city that keeps unveiling more aspects, more stories, more hidden places, the longer you live there.

Paris, meanwhile, my former home and city of my dreams, remains just that: more a city wrapped up in romanticism and idealization than a workable reality (banlieues non-withstanding). The place is a painting: the city views are predominantly beautiful, the streets still lined with nineteenth-century blocks and only a few steps away - conceptually - from the snow-globe town that is Venice. There is very little that is contemporary or even 'ugly' about central Paris (and when there is it feels unique or out of place - namely the Pompidou Centre and business district around Gare du Lyon). Paris is preserved; it is insistently traditional, not only architecturally but also in attitudes and norms. It is a concentrated hub and much of what is 'everyday', 'contemporary' and 'residential' happens in the banlieues, detached from the city proper (both physically by the boulevard périphérique, and conceptually) and widely thought of as architecturally uninspiring.

With history comes variety, and what is variety? I only wish there were a better cliché than the spice of life. However, while Paris and New York fall short for me on opposite counts, I still believe London has something to learn from them. La Ville-Lumière is eternally concerned with aesthetic beauty, in a way London perhaps forgets; meanwhile, the Big Apple undeniably generates an excitement that our city will never quite achieve. In its mix of old and new, London sets up a tough challenge for itself in terms of coherence; but as long as both are tended to with care, I believe my home can justifiably be called a pretty great city.


No comments:

Post a Comment