There are many aspects of “The Charter of Athens” to discuss, but, I am going to focus on the depraved nature of the suggested recommendations made to create “The Functional City.”(1) While on paper The Charter of Athens may seem promising, once actualized, the solutions posed cause more harm than good. The recommendations made in the document do not consider the true needs of the people. While the issues described in “the four functions of the city”(2) appear to have well-intended solutions, they are much more destructive than they seem. (For the sake of length I will only address a few recommendations) Regarding dwellings, the document suggests that “29. Highrise apartments [should be] placed at wide distances apart liberate ground for large open spaces.”(3) The large spaces between high rises intend to create recreational spaces however, these spaces are unusable because of the intensely uncomfortable sensation created by the looming apartments. Considering the recreational space around the dwellings is unfit for people to use, For additional recreation space, the document suggests, “36. Unsanitary slums should be demolished and replaced by open space. This would ameliorate the surrounding areas.”(4) Although this might indeed provide additional recreational space, it is important to note that the document never addresses how to improve the living conditions in slums and only suggests demolition. Now, if demolition is the only option regarding the slums, this must mean that the impoverished people who live there will be able to live in the new dwellings previously recommended for construction. But alas, the suggestions regarding work and transportation, create another problem. First, the document states “46. Distances between work places and dwelling places should be reduced to a minimum”(5), then it adds, “47. Industrial sectors should be separated from residential sectors by an area of green open space”(6), while at the same time, “49. Workshops, which are intimately related to urban life, and indeed derive from it, should occupy well designed [sic] areas in the interior of the city.”(7) Considering that industrial sectors should be on the fringes of the city while business sectors should be at the heart and that distances between workplaces should be minimalized, it sets up clear segregation of housing opportunities. These suggestions directly correlate to a wealthy city center and a poverty-ridden outskirt, therefore, recreating the issue of slums all over again (even though this issue is part of what the document intends to address). This issue is further emphasized in the section labeled “Legacy of History”(8). The section praises the significance of historic architecture, but only “fine architecture”(9) is worth protecting. It makes it clear that historic architecture should be restored and protected when it is in the best interest of the public, but of course, the surrounding slums are not included. This concept is shameless not only because slums in many cases can be considered gems of historic architecture but also because there could not be a more obvious form of removing impoverished people for gentrification. The entire document essentially details that the way to create a functional city is to destroy the slums and segregate poor neighborhoods by placing them far from the city center, far from a sense of security, closer to the industrial pollution, and far from their comfort zones. This is a dehumanizing, insidious way to keep people in poverty, and certainly not the right plan for a “functional city”.
(1-9)
Congress Internationaux d’Architecture moderne (CIAM), La Charte d’Athenes or The Athens Charter, 1933. Trans J.Tyrwhitt. Paris, France: The Library of the Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, 1946.