Metro-Matrix Theory » Metro-Matrix, 20th C. Metropolitan Theories » Archipelago versus Metro-Matrix
 |
Archipelago versus Metro-Matrix. The Future of Metropolitan Planning? |
 |
|
| Four(+) main theories of Metropolitan Form in the 20th Century: Orbital (Vienna, 1912), Central Place (South Germany, 1933), Archipelago (Berlin/London, 1977) and Metro-Matrix (Madrid, 1996). Plus the do-nothing approach of many actual metropolises: The Moss. Which will run the future?
Which is the future of the metropolis: Archipelago or Metro-Matrix? Many advocate for the end of space. The cyber city will take place in the cyber non-space, which has no, or only a tenuous, relation with the physical one. The “Smart Cities” movement pretends to respond to city needs with quantitative data in an empirical way. No conceptual analysis required. On the other hand, structuralism thinkers such as Baudrillard have been for many years claiming the end of History. We are living in the ahistorical age. Does the Metropolis need a Shape? A Form? A Structure? Or it can be as informal as the Internet? Does it not need a physical Form with which to relate? We doubt it. As far as the human being will not get rid of the body, it will need space to move and to rest, apart from a sense of place with symbolic and subconscious meanings. The nowhere/everywhere Commercial Center is as alienating as Sarcelles. Space needs to be quality-space, not junk-space. As we are entering into the Age of Metropolises with two billion people moving from rural to urban areas in the next 20 years, we can decide either to produce junk/ghetto metropolises (the do-nothing, “moss” slums of many cities) or quality/global metropolises. Archipelago or Metro-Matrix: Choose the best for your situation. They could be complementary. One deals with the symbolic quality of spaces, the other with the overall structure. Still to come: the Theory that will blend them. |
|
 |