«Garden city» – a combination of two words, that originated in order to revive urbanized cities. It is interesting to take a retrospective glance at how it was possible for the utopist idea of garden cities to turn into a global trend. Let us try to briefly present the main principles and the extent to which they had an impact on the design of the first master plan for the city of Yerevan, the capital of Armenia.
Urbanization as a global problem has already emerged a decade ago, and large cities’ expansion has led to a number of environmental and urban problems. The disorganized constructions of urbanized cities, the large majority of waterproof surfaces such as roofs, sidewalks, squares, etc., unwittingly gradually vanishing green and open spaces, as well as the large number of the emissions complementing them have inevitably led to numerous threatening consequences. With its ecosystem violated, the town has become not a favorable environment for the residents, as well as for human activity in general.
This troubling situation has always drawn the attention of numerous architects, urban developers, environmentalists and specialists of other sectors. Immediate solutions were necessary in order to overcome the unfavorable situation that had been created. In the period of the late 19th until the beginning 20th century there was an utopian view born in England, which was destined to leave a trail for future decades, not only in European, but also in urban cities across the world. It was the idea of garden cities, invented by the economist and journalist Ebenezer Howard. 1898 he published «Tomorrow»: a «peaceful step towards real reforms» (which was reissued in 1902 as «Garden Cities of Tomorrow »). Its big success developed into a movement.
Howard strictly criticized large European cities and their widespread unorganized construction works. According to him, the existence of suburbs, the constantly increasing population, insanitary conditions and the irregular construction of cities make them uncontrollable. He further describes that such big industrialized cities don’t need radical planning changes, but new methods for gradually moving population to other living areas. Analyzing the reasons for the constant flow towards the city and the desertification of rural communities, he came to the conclusion that it was possible to keep people away from the city by creating other attractions for them. Based on this, Howard’s idea of «a third magnet» for distribution of the population was conceived. One magnet lists the advantages and disadvantages of town life, another lists the positives and negatives of country life. In contrast to the first and second magnets, the third magnet must become an economically autonomous garden city to be built into the nature and organically merge all the advantages of urban and rural life.
In Howards words: «Town and country must be married, and out of this joyous union will spring a new hope, a new life, a new civilization. It is the purpose of this work to show how a first step can be taken in this direction by the construction of a Town-country magnet».
Howard considered the large size of the city as the reason for all its negative sides and set the number of the population of a garden city at no more than 32’000. In this kind of a city, both the center and the suburb are located within the boundaries of pedestrian accessibility. Howard has proposed to create «garden city federations», which would consist of one central (main) and six small «city-parks». These six small cities would circle the central like satellites and had contact with each other through the main railway.
With great faith in the idea of garden cities, Howard ends his book like this: «I trust we shall meet in Garden city». He began to look for funds to build urban gardens around London. And with success: He designed Letchworth and Welwyn garden cities. With them, Howard’s ideas became more widespread in European urban planning.
Now, let’s have a look at Yerevan – was it planned as a garden city? When the great chief architect Alexander Tamanian designed the plan for the city of Yerevan, what principles of Howard’s theory of garden cities did he adopt?
The name of the Armenian architect Alexander Tamanian has been closely linked to the history of construction and development of Yerevan for decades. Although Tamanian as an architect was formed in the Russian environment in Petersburg, he was always aware of the Armenian art of construction. His progressive ideas and projects have left a big trace on the development of the environment for architecture and urban development in the city of Yerevan. Leaving aside other numerous projects that deserve attention, it is interesting to touch upon the creation of the first plan for the city of Yerevan. And of course, we will try to understand the changes that the city of Yerevan has undergone in terms of urban development and to what extent it is close to its initial idea.
It should be noted that Tamanian, prior to his arrival in Yerevan, planned the first garden city in Russia. Its name was Prozorovka village, which is now called Kratovo, 40 kilometres away from Moscow.
Thus, by taking the best forms of foreign garden cities and with personal experience in designing similar plans, Tamanian undertook the initiative of designing the master plan for Yerewan.
If we look back at Howard’s theory, we can say he and Tamanian have some other approaches. According to Howard, a garden city must be built not far from the big cities, in nature, organically incorporating them into all the advantages of urban and rural life. In other words, new towns will be built exclusively. According to Tamanian’s decision, the garden city will be built in the old place.
So, we must confess that the implementation of the plan designed for the city of Yerevan was a difficulty that Tamanian had committed to overcome. After all, things become incomparably difficult when a garden city has to be integrated into an environment that has already been historically established – like the Armenian one.
Thus, even though Tamanian radically changed Yerevan, he maintained the routes of historically established streets and the particularly valuable architectural monuments. He pictured his plan as a central structure hinged on the European experience and on a city that is itself a center where the social, climatic and symbolic (f.e. the streets looking towards the Biblical Ararat) aspects were in harmony. One of the major merits of the master plan is, that Tamanian managed to skillfully take advantage of the peculiarity of the relief of the city of Yerevan, installing the central part of the city in a seemingly natural amphitheater. According to the plan, the city was divided into administrative, commercial, labor, industrial, universal and museum districts, where he paid special attention to the green zones. 10-15% of the town’s territory (760 140 hectares) was allocated to the gardens. In one of his reports he stated: «It was possible to build a large number of small gardens in various parts of the city, but it is necessary to considerate the fact that those separate gardens would play a smaller role in maintaining the coolness and humidity in the city than the greenery contained in the city. This will represent a chain of parks that will highlight the major part of the greenery in the city.»
According to the architect, it was envisaged to build a resort at the side of Hrazdan River. A large, forestlike grove was supposed to be located in the northern upland of the city to protect it from winds and dust coming from the north. It was more than important to him to create «the lungs of the city», which would form onesixth of the total area. The central part of the city was surrounded by this «Green Belt», and the landscape gardening in the center of the city would be organized on Main Avenue (the Main Avenue was envisaged as a green alley for pedestrians) and on woody streets. Tamanian had also already conceived in the master plan the main complexes of the city with their dimensional structures and had designed the spatial connections between the particularly emphasized junctions for construction, creating a system of three squares, including the modernday Freedom Square, Republic Square and Shahumyan Square. Republic Square was installed at the intersection of the main axes of the plan.
Tamanian’s project received full agreement of the government of Soviet Armenia. Thus, on 3rd April 1924, the general plan of Yerevan was approved for up to 150’000 inhabitants. Since the population of the capital of Soviet Armenia was growing day after day, in addition to various kinds of zoning designs, Tamanian undertook the initiative to design the master plan for a more spacious area and called the master plan «Grand Yerevan ». It was approved in 1936 for up to 300’000 inhabitants. It seems as though Tamanian had used the idea of Howard, who suggested creating other small and adjacent garden cities. The fifth master plan of Yerevan was approved by the Armenian government in 2005, and its implementation is planned until 2020. In the framework of the general plan, it was planned to increase the greening in the city, the construction of two new avenues: the Northern and the Main, the construction of alternative roads, as well as the zoning of the metropolitan communities.
It is obvious that the city is growing and that construction is inevitable. Of course, it is noticeable that Yerevan has developed and that its architects, who have respected and maintained the ideas of Alexander Tamanyan with certain modifications, have become better. They have also replenished the city with beautiful structures that are the emphasis of the city.
However, I regret that I have to mention the fact that the unsystematic construction works continue in central Yerevan in an active manner. Green areas are being concreted. In some cases, valuable structures are dismantled and replaced with multi-story buildings that don’t convey any meaning. Construction attachments, anti-aesthetic and dangerous superstructures are mushrooming, distorting the shape of the city. Yerevan, which was once the city of the sun, is currently overcrowded and is «suffocating» due to indifference and strange forms.
It is necessary to show a coordinated approach to the city. The harmony of green areas, water surfaces and construction in the city needs to be ensured. Any structure and even small architectural forms need to emerge as the component of the large spatial complex of any district of a city or the city in its entirety. The occupied land parcels need to be compensated with vertical and horizontal (green-roofs) landscape gardening. The list can go on. There is so much work to do – and work needs to be done.