NEW YORK, PARIS, BERLIN Urban development in the past decades is characterized by the formation of regional cities. The cities were extended and some parts of the existing towns and suburbs were included within the limits of metropolises. Following the metropolises, regional cities have come into being. The settlements of the peripheries however, were not administratively always linked to the metropolises. The link, in the first place, is an economical one, meaning that the integration of the region is also of a political, commercial, communicational, cultural, and recreational character. These regional cities comprising vast areas are also called megalopolises, conurbations, urbanoterritorial cities or métapolises. The people of regional cities have to depend on each other in many ways. The way of life for the inhabitants is based on a division of labor in a vast area. These cities do not necessarily have a single center since the majority of them came into being through the unification of several metropolises. In other cases, however, regional cities are the outcomes of a gradual expansion and widening influence. Within regional cities division occurs, new focuses emerge as a result of decentralization. Regional cities gradually become multi-centered ones. The onetime division to cities and countryside is replaced by the separation of the regional city and the remaining green area. In the second half of the twentieth century, within the regional cities, several structural changes and migrations had taken place. An exodus, a moving out of the city into the countryside, almost exclusively characterized the first period. As distorted forms of garden cities, the suburbs were born. Following the exodus, commercial and entertainment centers soon came into being in the scattered areas. Some decades later this was followed by the emigration, usually in groups, of workplaces, industrial plants and, in a growing number, office complexes. The structure of the region underwent a further change with the formation of more densely settled office-parks within the suburb. Contrary to this tendency,

two decades ago, another period characteristic of today began, a trend contrary to the former one, namely the influx of part of the country population. This consists of ambitious members of the young professionals, mostly single or childless couples, and well-to-do pensioners. The two movements are simultaneous although not equal in measure. This especially stands for those larger cities, which had previously also been important commercial or intellectual centers such as New York. Parallel to this, offices striving for prestige are also gaining ground in the old downtowns and their expansion speeds up the rehabilitation of these centers. Although the past three decades witnessed the increase of telecommunication and also the decentralization of work and workplaces, the bulk of offices have kept their staff together. Teleworking and work done at home is, for the time being, mainly an illusion. Beside the élite workplaces and the population moving back to the cities, they are the visitors, in ever growing numbers that raise new demands on the cities. Because of, and for them the architectural renovation of the old city centers became a primary task. It was above all the historical parts of the towns that were restored. The new inhabitants, the prestigious workplaces and the tourists visiting historical monuments demanded the faithful renovation of commercial services and scenes of cultural events and entertainment. All these factors contributed to the city centers becoming showcases. The representation of the past became a commodity, and facades of bygone epochs serve as goods in showcases. The historical city center has become a museum of architecture (Paris). Demands stemming from refluence and restructuring outgrew former frames and the renovation of the industrial plants and densely populated housing estates began. This ended in concentrations both of offices, commerce, culture, entertainment, and habitation. The limitless expansion of megalopolises finally forced out concentration also within scattered areas. In the scattered settlements, in areas farther away from city centers, within the suburb, groups of workplaces, industrial and office parks came into being. This is why regional cities are gradually becoming multi-centered. This process took place in both cases when

the metropolis had originally been a product of several settlements (Berlin, Los Angeles) and where the formation of a regional city was the outcome of a radiation from the metropolis (Paris, Houston). The limitless scattering was finally met with some resistance. Part of the suburban population wishes to halt limitless expansion and it wants to prevent new areas from being taken away from nature. There is a growing desire to close down the boundaries of regional cities. Despite this, the natural environment is further decreasing, partly because the population left out from the suburbia wishes to keep on living in a house with a garden, and partly because the wealthier suburbanites want to move still farther, nearer to nature. These desires are understandable, however, as the filling up of regional cities and the further increase in number of the population involves the risk that the causes - crime, stuffiness, dirt, unbearable noise and chaotic traffic - that repelled the population from traditional cities will be reproduced or maintained. The refluence toward the city centers, however, does not only mean the resettlement of professionals, the elite or the wealthy, but also the elimination of the slums. The renovation of the „museum-city” emerged in their stead is accompanied by a change in function, because behind the restored old facades a population of a new mentality is moving in, and the transformed inner spaces house new tasks. The past, the old lifestyle, and the working processes of yesterday have all disappeared from behind the architectural mask. The restructuring of society happens precisely against the past, and despite the cherishing of the historical past there is a break in the continuity of social formations. Together with rehabilitation, the continuance of customs, traditions and lifestyles is also coming to an end. The conservation of the historical past at the same time means the negation of the historical process; thus the structure of society becomes disintegrated. The above described fluctuation and the change in society and city structure created new systems of connection within the regional cities, such as

electronic communication and the ever changing forms of commuting. Electronic communication has, however, not ousted previous personal relations. It did not substitute the traditional, but the two exist beside each other without a decrease in the forms of personal contact. People intercommunicate to an ever greater extent, using the most suitable means to comply with their interests: they use the computer to write e-mail letters or telefaxes, participate in teleconferences while not giving up at „old fashioned” encounters either. Common workplaces, face to face negotiations, personal participation in shopping, the direct delivery of goods to the customer, the proliferation of clubs and restaurants, and joint entertainment all make the population participate in traffic to an ever growing extent. The two kinds of bondage together by far exceed the number of past contacts. Both the quantity of the daily commutation and the length of distances covered grow. Although part of the population takes part in telecommunication having a computer at hand, the reason of locomotion is to a lesser degree going to the workplace. At least fifty percent of the population takes part in transport for reasons outside working, i.e. shopping, entertaining, visiting or travelling. All this is accompanied by the expansion of the means and methods of transport. Travelling today is served by a variety of means from airplanes to bicycles. The new forms of transport are at the same time both causes and effects of urban restructuring. The distances to be covered, the means and direction of transport, its destination, frequency and juncture all contribute to the definition of traffic courses and, thus, of the city structure. The character of commuting determines the city, as it were. Those going to work flood from the outer areas into the city center, and so do visitors from even greater distances. In multicentered cities, however, commuting may go in a contrary direction too, as workplaces are scattered and people go to work there from the center. The number of combinations is endless especially if we take the places and means of shopping, entertainment, official and friendly encounters into consideration. Traffic is, by all intents and purposes, the function of work processes, human lifestyles and mentalities.

From the above described features of regional cities we intend to examine three trends: the partial migration of the population to the old city center; the transition of the historic city centers into museums; and the emergence of the multi-centered city. To represent these contemporary tendencies of urban development, three cities seem to be most suitable: New York as an example of gentrification, Paris as one of a museum city and Berlin as a multicentered city. * From the Second World War till the Eighties, the population of New York had gradually been decreasing - from nearly 8 million to 7 million inhabitants. Within this, the population of Manhattan has decreased to a disproportionate degree. Data show that the inhabitants left the inner areas of the city. The greater part of the fleeing people moved to the outskirts of the city or even farther, into one of the satellite settlements surrounding it. In contrast to that of the metropolis, the number of the population in greater New York, within the area of the megalopolis grew. This trend was reverted in the Eighties and the number of the population in the metropolis proper and, within this, in the inner areas began to increase again. A process of refluence into the city began. New York today has more than 8 million inhabitants, with 1.5 million living in Manhattan. This latter figure signals but a slight increase. Newcomers are not simply the old population moving back, they are coming from the entire country. A significant part of them resettled from the suburbia but people also came from more distant parts of the United States or even from abroad. This, however, makes no difference; the increasing ratio of the population marks the increase of those living in the metropolis. Both the flood into the city and the migration out of it can simultaneously be observed. Growing numbers do not unanimously mean refluence because, as a result of the two-way mobility, the number of those moving into the city exceeds data signaling growth. The exchange of the population means also a

restructuring, as newcomers belong to a different social group from those whom they replaced. Currently those moving out, beside the well-to-do, we also find the poor. They are not only attracted by the „better” life conditions of the suburb but have been forced to leave the city center because of the dramatically increasing prices of apartments. Those moving back are in a better financial situation, more educated and have other demands than those who left. Therefore, even by an identical number of inhabitants we have to speak of the increase in living area counted in square meters. Newcomers occupy bigger apartments than those in which the emigrants lived. Beside this, newcomers have greater demands that regards quality, thus they force out the rehabilitation of the inner areas of the city. Why do city dwellers move out and why do they return? The dilapidated parts of the city, the slums, crime, stuffiness, air pollution, dense and chaotic traffic, unbearable smell and noise, and an exaggerated lifestyle all contribute to the inhabitants’ fleeing the inner districts of the city. In contrast to these negative factors, the suburb attracted people with the possibility of owning a house with a garden, greater space, the vicinity of nature, and fresh air. With time, however, all these advantages began to reverse. For most of the “emigrants”, the size of the ground-plot, and thus also of the garden, decreased while the prices went up exponentially, thus compelling suburbanites to move farther from their workplaces and spend more and more time amidst traffic on the highway. The use of cars enhanced pollution and noise to such an extent that the suburbanite found himself in a similarly disadvantageous situation as before. As a result of its dramatic expansion, the suburb distanced itself from nature and finally crime also reached the outskirts. The most recent data of the 2000 census seem to justify this migration. Areas more distant from New York have lost a significant portion of employment opportunities (i.e. traditional industry) and only those dwellers remained who do not work or who can do so from their homes. The greater part of those who had before lived at more distant points of the regional city also moved out from the small towns into the suburbia, mainly into those of the small towns. The number

of residents in towns nearer to the metropolis grew because the bulk of them, more than before, work in New York. Small towns with a certain touch of charm, as e.g. Hudson City, have not lost their residents either, as the quaint buildings, traditional handicraft, tranquility and the sight of the river attracts those whose work does not bind them to New York or who do not have to rely on making money. The cause of moving back to the city or the city center is twofold. First, the city today is less unpleasant than it was before and, moving back has certain advantages. Great effort was used to reduce crime. Although there are more policemen patrolling the streets, and less beggars and homeless people around, the causes were not resolved. Charitable institutions for the homeless were removed from the city center. Homeless people were forced to go to other areas, and in certain American cities, one-way airline tickets were bought and bums were put on planes heading for distant regions in the country. Parallel with the „cleaning up” of the streets, rehabilitation of the inner districts and the restoration of the buildings began. Even in the case of smaller settlements, to prevent people from longing for the bigger towns, local authorities also contribute to conservation and revitalization. Therefore, beside the renovation of old buildings, new ones are erected as well. Most American city centers, as in Detroit or San Francisco, are being rebuilt. In the long neglected center of El Peso with nearly one million inhabitants, the past decade witnessed the construction of a museum, a cultural center, a theater, an exhibition hall, and a convention center. On the other hand, however, traffic and thus noise, pollution and stuffiness did not decrease. Even today, locomotion is almost impossible in the inner districts of metropolises, even in places where there is a ban on cars in the center, such as Rome, where motor scooters substituting cars make chaos even worse. In other cities, as in the center of Vienna or Milan, pedestrian streets were established in usually rather small areas. In the United States even these

examples were not followed. There is only one street in New York where cars are banished. Despite this, however, wealthier retired people move to Manhattan, because, due to the dense building up, shops and shopping centers are within walking distance, or goods can be ordered and obtained from home delivery services, thus making it unnecessary for the elderly to use their cars. The formation of settlements does not happen in a unified way even within the regional cities; thus both tasks and solutions are different. While certain areas of the suburbia are becoming denser, the inner centers need loosening up. The existent rigid street structure of metropolises is being replaced by building complexes of a looser structure and arrangement with plazas and parks, though with not much success so far. These two tendencies of city structure formation are not of an equal measure and they do not complement each other either. In Manhattan, especially on the avenues of the Upper East Side, 30-40storey residential buildings are being built one after the other. During the past two decades more than 40 superstructures were built in the area between 59th Street and 96th Street and comprised approximately 14,000 apartments. Taking into consideration that the bulk of those who move back do so without children, this means approximately 40,000 residents. If we look at the data referring to the whole of Manhattan, the estimated number of habitants are at least 160,000. Taking into consideration also the smaller, older but nowadays restored apartments, the figure above 200,000 is most moderate. Naturally, among the newcomers there are many who had lived in Manhattan earlier. However, the number of resettlers is so significant that we can speak of a new trend. Approximately 14 percent of 1.5-million population of Manhattan live in new apartments or those rebuilt during the past two decades. These new apartments are all equipped with various security appliances and also have janitors and guards to ensure that even the elderly may live safely. The authorities of certain suburbs are desperately trying to prevent this process. Replacing the elderly are families with school aged children, who severely impact

the suburb’s budget. Beside the elderly, another big group of people moving into the cities is that of young ambitious professionals with university degrees. These are mostly childless couples or singles, attracted by the city because of greater possibilities stemming from work and financial concentration. They spend most of their lives at their workplaces and have no time to commute. They, thus, prefer urban lifestyle be it ever so hectic, and in the remaining time they take the opportunity to use the more varied entertainment and cultural possibilities. Many had come to the cities because of their university studies and stayed there (in Manhattan, from among the big universities considering only Columbia, NYU and CUNY, there are more than 100,000 students, while their total number is much higher). Due to this stratum, lecture halls are full and there are queues in front of exhibition halls and museum entrances. These people stay in the megapolis because of the excitement the cities offer. However it is not only the advantages of urban life that attracted young professionals but they have fled from the boredom, desolation and lonely lifestyle, that suburbia brought on. Living in the city, however, beside providing more opportunities and excitement, has a darker side too. Difficulties that made part of the population flee, have not all disappeared. Slums, dilapidated districts still exist, and crowdedness has not decreased either. The air is still polluted, and traffic is just as chaotic - rushing or static, depending on the hour of the day. In the inner districts there are very few parks or green spots. It is true, however, that doing away with the slums is a constant process and there is no place in Manhattan where public security has not improved. The process also stands for districts as the Lower East Side or Harlem where the number of rehabilitated buildings is constantly increasing and the owners of dilapidated buildings are only waiting for the moment when they can reconstruct them and put them on the market. It is first the students, artists or art lovers that move into the apartments and one time store-houses of low-rent districts, to be followed by galleries and the increasingly elegant restaurants, and soon it becomes chic to live in the district in question

(like Chelsea). As the result of the above mentioned trends, crowdedness in New York has slightly increased. The new apartment or office buildings, usually much higher than the ones before, emit more and more pedestrians on the sidewalks of the streets or make them take a cab, enhancing thus traffic. The ever growing height of the buildings is the result of the so called airright, the right of owning the air space above the neighboring lower constructions. Another possibility of increasing height is the construction of plazas. Part of the ground floor area remains an open space and palm sized slips of squares come into being that cannot be used for anything. In the proportion of these, however, the builders are entitled to increase height. „Up there” buildings get ever more crowded. The investor later wants to build in these areas intended to be public spaces, and by further bargaining he regains them. This happened in the case of the public square under the arcades of the AT&T building designed by Philip Johnson. To make the city cleaner and have healthier air, more must be done than just cutting up certain street corners or establishing mini-squares. The radical solution cannot be achieved unless neighboring organizations supporting ecological aims get stronger as opposed to investors; unless they can achieve that the city ensure significant areas for public parks. The initiative and enduring fight might be successful as a result of the neighbors’ joint effort, as in Manhattan’s East Village where, by joining vacant lots, the region obtained more empty spaces to establish parks. All these results, however respectable, are but patch-ups and cannot replace the establishing of highly necessary, vast and open green areas, such as we can see, for example, in several Paris districts. The most difficult issue is traffic. For a satisfactory result more effort needs to be done today. In this moment the replacement of private cars by mass commutation has brought but poor results. Most megalopolises, even Los Angeles, have begun to build their subway system. Some cities replace streetcar rails (Strasbourg); others build cycle paths (Berlin). In Paris, policemen on bikes have appeared; some patrols even roller-skate in the streets. All these are but

the first steps, the city centers are still crowded with private cars. It is a praiseworthy initiative that the European Union organizes a Car Free City movement each year, which means that for one day, more than 50 European cities ban private cars from the greater part of the city center. The experiences of one single day, however, do not give us the right to draw serious consequences, as car drivers, vendors and buyers all postpone their activities until the next day. This initiative, nevertheless, points to the fact that authorities are under pressure. They feel that they have to do something to solve the problem. All propositions to decrease crowdedness, air pollution and energy consumption can only be hailed as positive. The problem, however, is not from commuting itself but from the structure of the city. As long as the frequented points in the city, are far from each other and dwelling places, no satisfactory solution can be expected. As long as people commute to such an extent as today, and are forced to do so by car when they want to go to work, shop or entertain themselves, no radical change can be hoped for. Another reason of the use of private cars is, no doubt, a mental one, and comes from the preferences and behavior of the city dwellers. A precondition of solving traffic problems is the decentralization of frequented venues. It is by no means a matter of indifference how the population living in scattered areas gets to various places. No fundamental change can be expected as long as the home is in the peripheries and the employees have to travel several hours a day (car+train+subway) to get to the center to work, study, shop or go out. A solution can only be hoped for if, within the scattered suburbia dense centers are established which enable the dwellers to satisfy their needs beyond sleeping, caring for the family and raising children. Another condition of the solution is that these scattered areas should be concentrated around workplaces and service centers. The formula is

decentralized concentration, the decentralization of condensed city centers. If this tendency strengthens then, through the structural change, a radical renewal may take place, and working people and shoppers will need to commute less. In the denser neighboring centers the advantages of old urban lifestyle could be joined with the wide possibilities of new communication and commutation possibilities. Parallel with the influx into the cities, a trend contrary to this can also be observed. In the inner districts of European and American cities - with the exception of some metropolises, as New York or San Francisco - the number of inhabitants is decreasing or stagnating. The number of Paris residents is constantly decreasing. In 1945, the city had 2.7 million inhabitants; today this figure is 2.3 million. Alongside with this, the size of built in and exploitable area is growing instead of decreasing. All this does not mean the decrease of the city’s significance but the changing of its society and role. New type of activities replace the dwellers. Artisans with their workshops, the less well-to-do strata, as well as ethnic minorities are forced to give up their rented apartments in the city. The decrease in number and the growth of the built in area is the outcome of enrichment at the expense of the above mentioned strata. One, already mentioned, reason of these changes is that resettlers move into apartments bigger than their predecessors did. Another reason of the city’s renewal is the gaining ground of office centers. Corporate centers of great enterprises all want to stay both in the city center and close to each other, or wish to move in there, mostly into more exclusive buildings than before. This process also means the decrease of the number of inhabitants. For the corporations a downtown office building is an issue of prestige. The milieu illustrates strength, greatness, security, respectfulness, even „eternity”. Similarly, most important institutions of state administration also stick to the city center, as being there is the symbol of power. Finally, restored and well cared for city centers attract visitors and tourists.

All those flood here who want to make business and those for whom the city is a place of excitement where they can go out and from where they can return to their homes with rich experiences. It is for them that new hotels are constructed, restaurants renovated, newer and newer shopping malls, buildings housing conferences, concerts and movies, as well as museums and galleries are built. The inner districts are being smartened up to enchant those who work there, those who travel there on business and also tourists. This is why renovated city centers are called „showcases” while the revitalized districts recalling the past or producing the illusion of the past are referred to as „museum cities”. This tendency characterizes most cities of the Western world. One after the other cities in the United States renovate their downtown areas and not only through demolishing/reconstruction. More than two decades ago New York’s Penn Station was pulled down but due to a wide social collaboration, Grand Central Station succeeded in avoiding demolition. Since the passt became fashionable, the “new old” is being built. Demolition, however, did not totally end, because in traditional cities there is not enough vacant lots available, and it is not profitable to leave the obsolete buildings untouched. In the place of old, low buildings or abandoned lots high apartment houses or office buildings are being built. This tendency is valid in the case of New York also beyond the above mentioned examples. Beside the construction of high buildings the renovation of the city center also takes place. Times Square has been restored, sexshops and drug dealers are gone. Everything is colorful, flashing, vibrating. There is a project to construct „New River City”, on the bank of the East River beside the UN buildings. The demolition of the low buildings and manufactures on the bank of the Hudson River behind the central bus terminal is imminent. The ground is being prepared for a new office district. For tragic reason, Battery City and the World Trade Center area are being renovated. In contrast, the new Guggenheim Museum is planned to be built on the East River without any demolition. *

The most prominent example of the „museum-city” is Paris. During the past two decades eight huge complexes were built here. The aim was to create monumental buildings that can represent Paris as a metropolis and at the same time enhance the reputation of the actual president. Eight such gigantic monuments were constructed during the presidency of Francois Mitterrand, four of which are museums. Musée d’Orsay is linked with the name of Valérie Guiscard d’Estaing, while the president before him also „immortalized” his name with a museum (Centre G. Pompidou). To this series of buildings belong the third opera house, the national library and the 60 hectare Parc de la Villette with its exhibition halls, museums and concert halls. An addition, two huge federal buildings were also constructed. These to latest buildings also contributed to present day Paris becoming the city of modernist „historical monuments”. The Ministry of Finance, displaced during the expansion of the Louvre museums, has its front piers standing in the Seine River. The other building housing a ministry is La Grande Arche (La Défense) at the end of the Paris axe accentuated with Champs Élysées opposite to Arc du Carrousel. Beyond these government investments, the city and private investors have also contributed - with museums, office buildings and huge parks - to make the city attractive for Parisians and tourists alike. The manhattanization of the city is accentuated by the 220-hectare La Défense, an office center resembling Midtown, on the bank of the Seine. In the past few decades Paris, has become the city of monumental edifices, more than any other metropolis,. But it is not only these building complexes, however significant, that render Paris a showcase city. Renovation was extended to the whole city and most buildings are restored irrespective of whether they are old or new, valuable or worthless, historical monuments or not. This renovation at the same time means reconstruction and the establishing of new districts as well as the construction of „new old” buildings. The bulk of the work has been carried out in the inner districts. The palaces of the Marais all are renovated and converted into museums, recalling the 16th and 17th centuries whereas the 18th-century palaces of the St. Germain district house governmental organizations. Belleville, however,

has been built on a sloping flat lot, from zero. In the stead of the quaint, old but shabby district there now stands a new but insipid one. It is possible that the dwellers moving in from the Middle and Far East will some day - with their own lifestyle - put new heart into this barren region. Vacant sites will not stay empty either, the gaps are filled up with modernist buildings or new ones with a facade imitating the old. This latter is a less frequent solution used for example on the island of Cité, on Place Dauphine several new buildings were constructed with a facade similar to the neighboring ones in the Henry IV style. The „showcase”-principle stands also for the most important traffic and scenic routes. The city’s walkway, Les Champs Élysées and its continuation, Jardin des Tuileries have been restored and broader sidewalks built at the expense of cars. Today, half of the road is for pedestrians, and cafés have appeared again on the sidewalks. The inner spaces of some buildings also serve as additional spaces to the promenade, serving shopping or entertainment purposes, some even house dozens of movies. The reconstruction of the small streets in the city center has also taken place. Parking cars were eliminated from the sidewalks and short concrete columns or slim iron bars on the curbs defend pedestrians. Through reshaping the curbs and safety islands as well as the pavement, the sight of the street became more orderly and nicer. This careful attention to detail contributes to the city’s delightful sight. The most dominant scene of the city, the riverbank is also under renovation. The neighborhood of the embankment is getting new looks: the almost complete restoration of the embankment walls, the substitution of missing trees with saplings on the promenades, while rotting old wooden benches were replaced by stone ones. The bridges are also under constant restoration. The stones of the oldest Paris bridge, Pont Neuf (New Bridge from the late 16th century) are being replaced piece by piece. The chandeliers and statues of the bridge Alexander III were newly gilt, while Pont des Arts gives home to musicians, exhibitions and picnickers.

All this beautification and the displaying of „values” is the consequence of the above described social and structural change of the city. Paris today, because of its inner districts, is not only a museum city but one of offices as well. Visitors who come here either on business or for entertainment, vitalize the services which spectacularly changes the city’s sight ever so colorfully. The number of those in the city - through the temporary workers and visitors - is multiplied. The city displays its goods, and offers itself to attract visitors. Tourists with their presence and with their new demands further shape the character of the city. Paris is changing in the first place, not according to the interests of its inhabitants but of the transient. Paris is constantly changing, Paris is blossoming. But the improvement has its costs. Those who had created and maintained the atmosphere of a city considered to be romantic are no longer present. Artisans’ workshops have disappeared from the courtyards and together with them also those who used to fill the coffee-houses and play in the squares. People who used to browse in quaint bookshops were replaced by customers of fashionable boutiques. Instead of bistros, fast-food restaurants or exclusive clubs have opened. The past and the atmosphere for which tourists used to come here are disappearing. Buildings referring to the historical past glitter but they cannot bring back the lifestyle and atmosphere of bygone days however „lifelike” the renovated facades are. The conservation of buildings can only relate to the sight, the outer appearance; life within the walls goes on according to the demands of the present. It is but the illusion of the past that we can speak of. This is why some openly choose the fake, and visit Disneyland some thirty kilometers from the center of Paris. Both city dwellers and visitors, however, want to live in modern circumstances; thus, the Paris sight is dominated by private cars, despite the Métro, RER and railroads. Although there are contrary initiatives as well, we cannot speak of a basic change only of a modest improvement. Pedestrian’s streets appear here and there, as for example in the vicinity of Montorgueil, in the Latin Quarter, or in the marketplace of rue Mouffetard. New parks have also

contributed to the city’s being less crowded. One of them is the A. Citroën Park with its choreographed system of fountains. Further examples are the 5-hectare park and Forum instead of the brutally demolished Les Halles, La Villette, and the park along Quai de Bercy, to mention only a few. A special and fortunate mixture of walkways and parks the “Promenade planté” is replacing the demolished rails of the old railway. The new green track starts from behind the Opera de Paris Bastille and leads up to Bois de Vincennes. The walkway begins on the top of the arcades bolstering the railroad, among trees, flowers and benches, and continues as a park, or meanders among new apartment buildings, finally reaching the boundaries of the city at the track of the old railroad. It is both a pleasant sight and a fine recreational area, rendering Paris to breathe more freely. All these initiatives and alterations contribute to slowing down the pace of city life, and decreasing the traffic dangers, noise and smell of outdoor life. Every measure, however meager, that minimizes dangers and unpleasant phenomena, deserves support, even if the basic problems are not solved. The advantages and values of the city can only be maintained or brought back if structural changes take place, i.e. if part of the inhabitants return and again become city dwellers making thus urban lifestyle vivid, and if various social strata again find their places n the city of the future. There is a danger that megalopolises, at least their inner districts become a perfect Babel, a pandemonium, a mixture of the City of London and an amusement park. Today the rival of the Eiffel tower, the Ferris-wheel that can be seen from everywhere, marks the geographical center of Paris. There is a danger that Paris - together with many other cities - may become an empty city, which is open only in calling hours and where, with the visitors gone, silence falls on the city. These places resemble the Indian city of Fatehpur Siqri built by the Mogul ruler Aqbar, a city that has been uninhabited for the past 400 years. A city should not become a museum. A warning sign is the open air museum near Szentendre in Hungary, where after resettling the houses from the villages, only the swallows

that have nested. They have found their place under the eaves. They know that the eaves are to give shelter to their nests, and houses are for living in them. There is no problem with the museums; the problem is if the whole city becomes a museum. Apartments on Place Vendôme are beyond price, as are the goods in the show-windows of jewelers encircling it. Diamonds are only for the eye but not for the wearing for most of the visitors. Tourists leave when the night comes; the square dies out with only the luxury cars to remain. A city without inhabitants is not a city. One can create artificial cities, as the satellite towns around Paris but it is much more difficult to fill the walls with life. Life is the sum total of the many-sided activities of the inhabitants. It is a condition of complex urban life that all social strata, a full cross section of society should be represented. Some time ago, in Paris, just as in several European cities, different social strata had lived on various stories of the same house, which was divided along the vertical line. Today, the social division of the inhabitants is rather of a regional character; different strata live in different districts. Social separation in our days happens not so much within certain districts of Paris but between Paris and its suburbs. It depends on the pressure exerted by the inhabitants whether the city builds inexpensive and good quality apartments for the low wage population. The professionals, specialists who work at home or from their homes, artists, artisans and those working in the services can all contribute to the realization of a manysided life in the city, to make urban life more enjoyable. Two aspects should come across simultaneously, the elimination of repulsive factors and the assertion of the attractive values of a city. * It is less and less possible to organize and serve the regional city because of its vast distances - from a single center. This is why in most suburb’s urban concentration appears. There are two versions, the European one where,

after the Second World War satellite cities were built, and the American one with industrial and office parks within the scattered suburbia. Metropolises did not always come into being from the scattering of already existent cities. Although this is the most widespread form of development, there are cities that had from the beginning been multi-centered. Such were, for example, Los Angeles and Berlin. Los Angeles is the outcome of the unification of several settlements and today has several centers. Taking into consideration greater Los Angeles (more or less Los Angeles County), we have to deal with a regional city consisting of several equal cities or city centers. Beside downtown Los Angeles there are other concentrations within the city as Wilshire Center, Miracle Mile, Brentwood, Westwood, San Fernando Valley and West Hollywood as well as Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Culver City, Pasadena, Burbank and others, constituting independent cities. The beginnings of Berlin were more or less similar; originally it was two separated cities, Berlin and Cölln. In 1709 Berlin was born from the unification of the original twin cities and the neighboring five towns. The splitting of the city after the Second World War is the result of outer pressure and violence, but the multi-centered character is not alien to the history of the city. There were several events preceding the formation of the devided city even in the twentieth century. Berlin has always been characterized by the establishment of various centers. Such are Bruno Taut’s Berlin Blitz; Hans Scharoun’s Siemensstadt; the post-war Hansaviertel projected by modernist architects; Marzahn in East Berlin; and later Kreuzberg or IBA (Intenazionale Bauausstellung) built in the Eighties. The multicentered character of Berlin is a continuation of traditions. The question in Berlin is the following: what are the prospects? To accept the multi-centered character or to try to unify the dissected city? To adhere to the generally accepted project of urban development, to centralize or, on the contrary, to follow the traditions and past of the city and carry on with decentralization? Events that happened after the demolition of the Berlin Wall point to the fact that city authorities wish to make the old administrative center,

that of one-time East Berlin, the Unter den Linden area flourish. The bulk of construction work is being carried out in the vicinity of the Brandenburger Tor, beside the Reichstag, in the Lehrter Bahnhof area, and along Friedrichstrasse. The work carried out here serves the accentuating of the old city center. The Unter den Linden area has always been an administrative center and that of foreign embassies. Recently however, few global corporations also have their headquarters here. The centers of administrative power and those of global economy are linked together. The downtown character of the district in the heart of the city has further been enhanced. Kurfürstendamm, the thriving trade center of the city has not lost its significance either, it is just as vivid as it had been before. These two centers exist side by side, one complementing the other. One of the most important architectural events of our days is the construction of Potsdamer Platz and the area to the West of it, Leipziger Platz. The question is what the role of the new district in the structure of Berlin can be. Potsdamer Platz was meant to be a complex settlement in which offices, places of entertainment (theater, movies, shopping centers, restaurants) and apartments are equally present. The area, nevertheless, is dominated not by the inhabitants but by visitors in the first place and those who work there, in the second. Those who factually live there do not create „life”. The visiting crowd is strolling in the three-story covered passage. In contrast, the traditional shopping street, Alte Potsdamer Strasse with its trees, seems to be forlorn. While the former serves the demands of our days, the latter is a gesture rather to fulfil the needs for romanticism of the people. The Potsdamer Platz area offers itself to the whole city; its task is not limited to the district. Thus, we may conclude that it is not a new autarchic district that has come into being but one that takes part in the division of labor of the whole city, one that plays a special role. This conclusion, however, is only valid if we examine Potsdamer Platz in its present state. What role will it play in the organism of Greater Berlin when the adjacent Leipziger Platz and its vicinity will also be completed rendering the site of the district doubled? The Potsdamer Platz and its vicinity are only a fragment

of the conglomeration of tomorrow. The area in question, as to its extension, cannot rival with the other two but that regards its high constructions and useful lots, it can. Thus it is an open question what role the Potsdamer Platz will play when finally ready. Will it be a joining element between the existing centers or will it separate them? Will it be an intermediary between the Unter den Linden administrative district and the Western commercial center, or will it define the downtown part of the city as a long, meandering band? In short, the question is whether a new, independent city center will come into being or just another element of a series of centers. The structure of Berlin is an unusual formation even today. The center of the city is occupied by a park, the Tiergarten, together with the Spree River and its channels and ponds. It is an open space, a negative center that regards buildings. The Potsdamer Platz turns its back to this green „center”, as well as to the cultural center at the edge of Tiergarten. The last building of the complex is the theater, which, like a wall, separates the newly established complex from the highly significant group of buildings by Sharoun and Mies van der Rohe (Neue Nationalgalerie, Staatsbibliothek, Kulturforum, Philharmonie, and Kammermusiksaal). In addition, the road similar to a busy highway makes the crossing from the new district to the neighboring cultural center impossible. This isolation does not facilitate the establishing of contacts, nor does it unify of the two districts. Thus, the newly constructed area might become the third, isolated center of the downtown district, that of corporate centers. Presumably, during the process of planning, the Potsdamer Platz was intended to have a uniting role. This, however, has not been realized. Intentionally or not, a new center was established in a way which can no longer be united with the neighboring Tiergarten area. According to its role and frequentation it serves the whole of Berlin while, as a result of its location, it is isolated from the rest of the city. The multi-centered structure of Berlin has, thus, been further reinforced but in a way that denies the joining of the new center to the whole. Berlin’s future may be decided only after the decision about the

development of the rest of the city. Berlin is an example of a multi-centered city, which is the result of uniting several cities right at the beginning. This example is illuminating because most regional cities were born in a similar way, via uniting existent towns and metropolises. Such is the „corridor” from Boston to Washington DC or the MilanTurin region together with the Swiss towns and economic area. Another trend is the regional city that came into being through the radiation of existing metropolises. Such are London or Paris where, around the original city, satellite towns have been built. These satellites, although originally sleeping cities or housing estates, today play an increasingly complex and manysided role characteristic of a city. Satellite cities now ensure employment opportunities for their inhabitants beside the previously established shopping and entertainment facilities. These satellites, although to a certain extent independent and autarchic, are forced to live as parts of the region. The third kind of formation of regional cities is the result of development within the existing metropolis. As a result of urban centers within the scattered suburbs, this formation came into being in the Unites States in the first place,. An example of this is Houston where, within the scattered suburbia, near the limits of the city urban centers, the so called “Edge Cities” appeared. These are mostly concentrations of workplaces. The Edge City around the airport where, beside office buildings, hotels and convention centers were also built. These edge cities can be found around almost all American metropolises. In the course of development, these may become similar to the satellite cities in Europe. The example of Stockholm may be mentioned as important where the satellite cities established decades ago had also originally contained workplaces beside housing estates. If and where around such central cities, concentrated housing estates also come into being, there is hope that these will constitute urban centers which may decrease commuting distances and also time spent with it. Such satellite cities or edge cities, together with the original metropolis, may become regional cities.

Based on the above, it seems that in our days the development of cities, be they metropolises or regional cities, is characterized by the tendency of greater concentrations within the limits of the city. The question is how complex and of what character these concentrations will be; whether the centers thus formed will be justly called city centers; and whether they will develop into regional cities. The more general solution, however, has to be waited for, as the majority of the population, especially in the United States, is either not willing to live in a more concentrated settlement or cannot afford the higher prices of the centers. Until the bulk of the population finds the concept of „my house, my castle” more advantageous, and until people think that they will find it less advantageous to live in the city than in the suburbs, no change can be hoped for. Customary attitudes, rational reasons and illusions are all combined here. One should, by no means, be under the delusion that the peaceful, provincial milieu of bygone days might return in the near future or ever. Human lifestyle, the organization of work and society and its opportunities have changed to such an extent that it cannot be supposed that people will ever resign from alleged or actual advantages, among them, the use of private cars. The question is rather, to what an extent will people use their own cars beside public transport means or walking, and whether they will consider their own comfort only or pay attention to damages caused by them and also affecting them. Without this, however, life will be impossible both in the suburbia and in the cities. The change in everyday commutation habits can only be brought about by the establishment of urban concentrations of various sizes and character. A small street might become a meeting point, within the suburbian shopping street resembling the quaint old provincial main streets can come to life. Such a shopping street or mini shopping center might be within walking distance if the inhabitants of the neighborhood live not scattered but in densely populated nearby settlements. If, however, people come here by car, and walking

decreases to a distance between the parking lot and the shop, these centers will not change the city’s character and will not solve the traffic problems of the city either. If such concentrations were to multiply and in some cases further increase and, beside the services, were enhanced by other job opportunities, and if offices were built mixed with apartments, some of these could become district centers. Cities within the city, that is, urban concentrations within the suburbia. In many places, the empty manufacture buildings and storehouses are turned into apartment complexes with workplaces. The peripheries are changing and in many traditional cities the former separation of the industrial district from the housing estate is decreasing. The coexistence of joint activities, the concentration of dwelling places, a density higher that today of the population are all essential conditions of urbanization, of city lifestyle. If the presupposition is right according to which development, however slow, results in certain concentrations, we have to understand that these urban concentrations coming into being in various areas of regional cities will be, at a given time, of different sizes and character. Provincial „main streets”, shopping centers and complex metropolitan concentrations will exist side by side, while complementing each other. The population commutes in a different way and for different reasons. There will be places where people can walk, as other area will be kept for public transportation. But they will be always other places, which can be reached by car only. The aim is that people could go certain places, depending on the distance, always using the best possible means, while considering environmental issues. The basis of the future city structure is the establishment of complex, urban districts instead of the zone-system of the post war period. Coordinate relations and hierarchy might coexist; sproul and centers might jointly characterize - side by side and subordinated to each other - both traditional and regional cities. *

The solution does not solely depend on traffic but on all other factors affecting city-dwellers. It, above all, depends on how actively inhabitants take part in arranging their own life circumstances. Crime does not only depend on the patrolling policeman and the execution of punitive sanctions. It is equally, if not more, important that city-dwellers should actively take part in control. Security depends also on the behavior of people and on the established system of habits. The maintenance of cleanliness is not an exclusive task of the sanitary authorities. Fresh air does not solely depend on the exchange of the cars or the shift from the use of private cars to public transport. If the inhabitants do not exert pressure on the city and on the builders to plant more trees in the streets, to establish more parks in more districts and to loosen, where possible, the rigid system of building up with front gardens, empty spaces and adjoining courtyards and gardens, it cannot be expected that less noise, smell, traffic and danger will affect the cities. Although cities will never become bucolic places and the silence of the village is not to be expected to move into the cities, the robust and vivid city can offer, and be attractive to many. True, the lifestyle of a provincial town cannot be realized in a megalopolis, but it does not have to be. A metropolis will always remain one, despite all possible changes. But the city should be freed from its drawbacks. It depends on the city-dwellers themselves how they care for their environment. The bulk of the immeasurably increased problems of the city may be eliminated if people themselves are willing to change their lifestyles, living circumstances and means of transport, returning the city to its values and free it from the detrimental accompanying phenomena. The problem is not the city but its distorted side effects. New York, 2003