The Urban Village and The City State

The purpose of this blog is to rehearse and explore related themes which concern the nature of communities within larger urban settlements. An earlier blog, which concerned the future of rural landscape, opened with a quote from Gion Caminada;

“Careful design of the cultural landscape is an important basis for the autonomous and confident development of peripheral regions. Nostalgia has no place in this however and nor has the schematic adoption of global concepts”

The point which is being made by Caminada may be no less relevant in an urban context, particularly that of South Wales. By localised reference to that region it may be possible to illustrate wider issues which concern post- industrial communities and their development which may be neither ‘autonomous’ nor ‘confident’.

The first theme which emerges from the Caminada quote relates to the ‘cultural landscape’ and explanation of this may be helpful. In the first instance there are those landscapes defined by the World Heritage Committee as distinct geographical areas or properties which uniquely "..represent[ing] the combined work of nature and of man.." The WHC identified and adopted three categories of cultural landscape, ranging from (i) those landscapes most deliberately 'shaped' by people, through (ii) full range of 'combined' works, to (iii) those least evidently 'shaped' by people (yet highly valued). The three categories extracted from the Committee's Operational Guidelines, are as follows;

(i) "a landscape designed and created intentionally by man";

 (ii) an "organically evolved landscape" which may be a "relict (or fossil) landscape" or a "continuing landscape";

 (iii) an "associative cultural landscape" which may be valued because of the "religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element"

The first point to be made is that such definition might be applied to the physical landscape of South Wales as the basis upon which a collective value assessment may be made as to what it is that we would wish to conserve. In so doing we might then consider what may be described as a prevailing ‘two-dimensional’ view whereby the physical landscape of the region is largely assessed in relation to its political landscape. The proposition that is then put is that proper consideration of the cultural landscape may provide a better ‘three- dimensional’ view. Coupled with this is the suggestion that our culture should inform our politics, not our politics dictate our culture.

Culture, in this sense, is not some preoccupation with the arts or, as is often the case in Wales, with its indigenous language and related activity, but the wider definition of the term which embraces the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of the people or, more specifically, civil society. In the latter case such definition is then rooted in the Aristotlian notion of a ‘community’, commensurate with the city-state (polis) which may be characterized by a shared set of norms and ethos in which free citizens live as equals under the rule of law.

The ‘city state’ is not then some distinct settlement marked by physical or, as is largely the case, the abstract demarcation of political boundaries but is a state of mind -a subscription to that notion that local communities are part of a larger one. This can of course be illustrated in the case of rugby union football in Wales where fiercely partisan and parochial loyalties may be set aside in support of the national team. If we consider that sport an integral part of our culture then why, we might ask, do we consistently fail to set aside tribal differences in civic matters?

In Wales an explanation may offered in the observation made by Harold Carter in 1965 that;

“.. urbanism is an intrusive element into Wales and a country with rural traditions and little material wealth could hardly evolve  distinctive styles of urban building”. (Carter 1965 p350) 

Neither, it may then be argued, has it evolved a truly civic culture but instead a number of settlements which he refers to as ‘sub-towns’ (p351) retained the characteristics of over-sized villages and a collective mindset of more isolated settlements. If that were the case it would then explain the parochialism of those settlements which are effectively part of a larger conurbation in South Wales. It is then interesting to read Carter’s closing comments on the status of Cardiff as the capital of Wales from his perspective which was ten years after it had been so declared by a Ministerial aside. Those still wrestling with the concept of the city region fifty years later would do well to read that final chapter. My interpretation of Harold Carter’s observations in this context is that the underlying antipathy to Cardiff among many in its hinterland is cultural. It is embedded in the DNA of that part of the population rather than an attitude which has been consciously adopted and developed. It is something that has become embedded in our culture and may be said to form part of the cultural landscape. It is a perspective which is then further distorted and inflamed by those considering issues and whose concerns relate almost solely to the political landscape. That is, where lines are to be drawn on the map of Wales for administrative convenience or the distribution of political power.

From this we may then consider the physical landscape wherein the ‘city region’ is, and for most of our history has been a given. If, for example, we take the same embarkation point as Harold Carter and reflect on the ‘pre-urban’ nuclei of South Wales towns then, in the case of Cardiff, it may be seen to be the natural focus of a ‘bio-region’ at the confluence of three rivers with the navigable waters of the Bristol Channel. Permanent settlement at a defensible crossing point of the central river and the adjacent development of a river port was then a practical response to the physical terrain. It was then a sub-regional centre when the principal export of that port was butter, not coal, and its exponential growth through the exploitation of the latter in its tributary valleys due, in large part to geology. The political and cultural landscape then developed from that physical landscape and the consequent issues can be explored and developed in further blogs. 

Here, in conclusion- and at risk of repetition- it may simply be emphasised that the origins of Cardiff may be said to lie in its position in the physical landscape. Although a fortified settlement it could not be said to be central to the political landscape of its time as, for nearly 2,000 years, such fortification was an appendage or outpost of powers that resided elsewhere. Similarly the settlement could not be regarded as central to a cultural landscape over a similar period. Such civic society as it may have had would have been, by and large, attendant upon institutions external to the region such as the church or a ruling elite. 

The issues that will then be discussed and explored in later blogs therefore concern the evolution of the political landscape from the growth of the settlement in the 1830's and the way that this has affected the cultural landscape of the region. An underlying proposition that will be developed is that which has been loosely rehearsed elsewhere. That is that;

 Wales needed a cultural revolution more than it needed devolution. We needed to change the way we think before we changed the way we vote.

Carter, H. (1965). The Towns of Wales. Cardiff, University of Wales Press.