The advantage is that the city is there

2005/11/01 Roa Zubia, Guillermo - Elhuyar Zientzia Iturria: Elhuyar aldizkaria

• Ingurumena

A Celtic tribe named Parisii established its residence on a small island of the Seine River a. C. III. More or less in the twentieth century. Living on this island had many advantages: it was an exceptional refuge, was in a prosperous area and, through bridges, was an ideal place to control the market and passengers. That is why that island is the origin of a city. The island is called La Cité and of course the city is Paris.

And Paris is just one example. Since he became sedentary, the human being has sought suitable places to live, which report advantages. In these places the population has grown and cities have been formed. The protection of an island, bay or hill, its location by a river, the prosperity of a delta, the possibility of cultivating a fertile land or any other advantage: people have concentrated in places with advantages, although some are dangerous.

Mexico City, for example, was built on a plain between volcanoes. They lived in a volcanic (and therefore fertile) plain full of lakes as opposed to the threat of volcanoes. Another example today is New Orleans. Thanks to the Mississippi River Delta, the entire environment was assured of fertility. But deltas are dangerous places. During the construction of the city, its floor was not compact; over time, the weight of the city has stepped on the ground and much of it has remained below sea level. The risk of flooding is therefore high.

The case of New Orleans is now evident, but time changes any city. And the city changes its surroundings. Of course, Mexico City has long exhausted the resources of the volcanic plains, Paris has long overtaken the island of La Cité and had to protect and otherwise supply its inhabitants, and in New Orleans, the water pipeline destroyed the original wealth of the delta and caused a great risk of flooding.

Could these environmental risks and problems not be predicted? Of course, they can be predicted, but it is very difficult to take effective measures. In short, the evolution of cities is due to population changes. Whatever the reason, the general trend of cities is to grow. The more people live in the city, the more difficult it is to take care of the environment and correct wrong decisions. For example, changing the life and place of residence of twenty million people in Mexico is very difficult. And the environmental impact of the city.

Vertical or horizontal

In any case, the growth of cities can be redirected. Above all you can plan the size of the buildings -the concentration of the population-.

Some cities have grown upwards, others wide. Height growth has the advantage that many people can live in places with little built surface. However, this type of growth poses great constructive difficulties and security problems. The second option, growing wide, is safer, but requires a large area and a very efficient transport network so that the city's resources reach everywhere.

Both models are in the Basque Country itself. This contrast manifests itself in the peoples of the South and the North. The houses of the South are higher and many people are concentrated in small places, while in the North the population lives much more dispersed. However, neither are extreme examples of both models.

Los Angeles, Detroit or Minneapolis are examples of horizontal city. And the concept of American city is that of offices and administration, in the city center, in the giant buildings, in the downtown, while the inhabitants live in small houses, in a very wide territory. Hong Kong and Singapore are the most spectacular examples of vertical cities. These two cities, located on the islands, build large buildings (sometimes floating on the water) without space to build.

What if we included a whole city in one building? Projects of this type have also been launched, but they have remained in a project. Fortunately, perhaps.