The rise of modernism and the decline of place: the case of Surrey City Centre, Canada

Abstract

This paper reviews the ideology of modernism in a North American context and discusses how its various attributes are embodied in the Surrey City Centre development in the Greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada. In doing so, it makes use of Calthorpe and Fulton's tri‐partite framework of specialization, mass production and standardization as being characteristic of the ethos of the age. After analysing the various interventions that design professionals and civic agencies have made in the Surrey City Centre area, it concludes that modernist ideology has a tendency to foster placeless settings lacking in vitality, security and comfort and appeal for pedestrians.

Notes

1. L. Sandercock, Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: Wiley, 1998, p.4.

2. A. Irving, The modern/postmodern divide in urban planning. University of Toronto Quarterly Summer (1993) 477–84; P. Calthorpe and W. Fulton, The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl. Washington: Island Press, 2001; L. Sandercock, op. cit. [1].

3. M. A. Goldberg and J. Mercer, The Myth of the North American City: Continentalism Challenged. Vancouver UBC Press, 1986.

4. For more on the history of planning in Canada, see G. Hodge, Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles, Practice and Participants, 4th edn. Scarborough, ON: Thomson Nelson Canada Ltd, 2003. For more on attempts at urban renewal and freeway‐building, see S. Hasson, and D. Ley, Neighbourhood Organizations and the Welfare State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

5. M. A. Goldberg and J. Mercer, op. cit. [3]. For more on the similarities and differences between US and Canadian sprawl, see Patrick Condon, Comparing Sprawl in U.S. and Canadian Cities, Planetizen Op‐Ed (2004), accessed online at www.planetizen.com/oped/item.php?id=135. For a comprehensive look at how modernist planning impacted on the Toronto region, see John Sewell (with a foreword by Jane Jacobs), The Shape of the City: Toronto Struggles with Modern Planning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

6. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.

7. P. Calthorpe and W. Fulton, op. cit. [2].

8. Jurgen Habermas in A. Irving, op. cit. [2], p. 475.

9. A. Irving, op. cit. [2], p. 476.

10. P. Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century, updated edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996, p. 204.

11. L. Sandercock, op. cit. [2].

12. Anonymous author in D. Ley, Modernism, post‐modernism and the struggle for place, in J. Agnew and J. Duncan (eds) The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989, p. 50.

13. M. M. Webber, Planning in an environment of change. Town Planning Review 39 (1968–1969) 192–3.

14. P. Hall, op. cit. [10], p. 317.

15. P. Newman and J. Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington: Island Press, p. 287.

16. L. Sandercock, op. cit. [2], p. 27.

17. P. Hall, op. cit. [10].

18. R. Moe and C. Wilkie, Changing Places; Rebuilding Community In The Age of Sprawl. Boston: Henry Holt & Co, 1997, p. 55.

19. P. Calthorpe and W. Fulton, op. cit. [2], p. 43.

20. Le Corbusier in R. Fishman, Urban Utopias of the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier. New York: Basic Books, 1977, p. 239.

21. W. Gropius in D. Ley, op. cit. [12], p. 51.

22. Le Corbusier in R. Fishman, op. cit. [20], p. 190.

23. R. Moses in M. Berman, All That is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York: Simon Schuster, 1982, pp. 193–4.

24. L. Sandercock, op. cit. [2], p. 23.

25. Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning, translated by Frederich Etchells, from Urbanism [8th edition]. London: John Rodher [reprinted as part of Essential Le Corbusier in 1947 by the Architectural Press], p. 243.

26. R. Moe and C. Wilkie, op. cit. [18].

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid., p. 55.

29. Ibid.; P. Hall, op. cit. [10].

30. R. Moe and C. Wilkie, op. cit. [18].

31. P. Hall, op. cit. [10], pp. 294–5.

32. R. Moe and C. Wilkie, op. cit. [18].

33. F. L. Ackerman, Where goes the city‐planning movement? Journal of the American Institute of Architects 7 (1918) 519–20.

34. D. Solomon, Global City Blues. Washington: Island Press, 2003.

35. R. Moe and C. Wilkie, op. cit. [18].

36. Le Corbusier in B. Brolin, The Failure of Modern Architecture. London: Studio Vista, 1976, p. 44.

37. A. Loos in A. Janik and S. Toulmin, Wittgenstein's Vienna. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973, p. 207.

38. D. Ley, op. cit. [12], p. 47.

39. D. Solomon, op. cit. [34].

40. Le Corbusier, op. cit. [25], p. 220.

41. G. Haughton and C. Hunter, Sustainable Cities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd, 1994. p. 105.

42. A. Irving, op. cit. [2].

43. Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning, in R. LeGates and F. Stout (eds) The City Reader. New York: Routledge, 1996, pp. 373–4.

44. Le Corbusier, op. cit. [25], p. 131.

45. P. Hall, op. cit. [10], p. 296.

46. L. Mumford, The City in History: Its Origins and Transformations and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich, 1961, p. 505.

47. K. T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 240.

48. P. Calthorpe and W. Fulton, op. cit. [2], p. 34.

49. A. Irving, op. cit. [2].

50. R. Moe and C. Wilkie, op. cit. [18].

51. Ibid.; J. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage, 1961.

52. D. Ley, op. cit. [12].

53. L. Sandercock, op. cit. [2].

54. Greater Vancouver Regional District, The Livable Region Strategic Plan. Burnaby, BC: GVRD, 1996.

55. City of Surrey, Whalley Enhancement Strategy: Report to City of Surrey Mayor and Council. Surrey: Planning and Development Department, 9 May 2003.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. M. Denhez, The Canadian Home: From Cave to Electronic Cottage. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1994.

59. City of Surrey, op. cit. [55], p. 15.

60. Ibid., p. 14.

61. City of Surrey, Surrey City Centre: Urban Design Concept. Surrey: Planning and Development Department, 1993, p. 29.

62. City of Surrey, Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD): Surrey Central Transit Village. Surrey: Planning Department, 2004, pp. 1–2. To be fair, the City has acknowledged many of the problems afflicting the area for over a decade and has sought to remedy them, but its interventions have often been contradictory and counter‐productive.

63. City of Surrey, Developers Take Advantage of Reduced DCCs in City Centre [press release], 2003. According to senior Surrey city planner, Paul Ham, this has resulted in a ten‐fold increase in high‐density residential development in the area.

64. This is a principle that has been consistently espoused by Christopher Alexander and his colleagues. See C. Alexander, H. Neis, A. Anninou and I. King, A New Theory of Urban Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shawn M. Natrasony

* Shawn Natrasony is a Master's student in Planning at the University of British Columbia with an interest in sustainable urban design and livable high‐density neighbourhoods.

Don Alexander

** Don Alexander is a planner and geographer working at Malaspina University‐College in Nanaimo, BC. His research is primarily in the areas of urban sustainability, smart growth and quality‐of‐place.