Citydannelse og industrialisering - en oversigt

Abstract

Business district formation and industrialization - an overview

The aim of the article is to provide an overview of how formation of central business districts or “city districts” as it is named at the continent after the City of London, has been defined and delinea-ted, and to discuss the traditional geographical and economic ex-planations of the occurrence of phenomenon. Most of these expla-nations have been inspired by Anglo-American conditions such as the shift from multifunctional houses for large households to pure commercial activities segregated from residential housing, new means of transport and perhaps most importantly rising pro-perty prices. On the level of method increasing quantification was used, and the questions asked was often feeding into current planning debate and criticism. Then the article discusses the chro-nology based on population density, new building types and chan-ging settlement patterns and thereby the traditional explanations. On the basis of existing research, the aim is to characterize the changing settlement pattern as well as the activities in order to highlight the significant of the physical changes in the central parts of European metropolitan areas during industrialization. The point of view is building history with focus on production and distribution, while educational and cultural institutions, cafes and amusements are not included in this overview. The examples are from North-western Europe, but not exclusively. Copenhagen has a relatively large weight because it is the city the author knows best. 

Business district formation can be defined as a concentration of workplaces in the tertiary and quartile sector of the city center that displaces the dwelling houses. Normally, the business district formation is connected with industrialization and as a component of the modernization process, characteristic of a modern industrial city, but not found in the pre-industrial city. However, the Austrian geographer Elisabeth Lichtenberger has argued that business di-strict formation in European capitals such as London, Paris, Naples and Vienna began back in the 1700s as these cities grew over 100,000 inhabitants and a bureaucratic state apparatus was established. In connection with this, Lichtenberger emphasized that the central districts of the European metropoles are not directly comparable to the Central Business District (CBD) of the US cities. Partly because public administration in the European capitals took up more space and regulated several conditions, including building regulations such as street width, building height and from around 1900 listing of selected buildings. Partly because the housing culture was more conservative, and partly because apartments remained relatively attractive to villas, and the combination of housing and business was and is more common.

Recently, the Belgian historian Bruno Blondé, in connection with the renewed interest in retail trade, has talked about the existence of a kind of CBD in medieval cities like Venice and Bruges because of the location of specialty stores and stalls, and methods of attrac-ting customers, in addition to the construction of building types such as market halls, warehouses, exchanges and bank buildings. Against this background, Blondé and others have emphasized con-tinuity and rejected a stage model, especially with reference to cities in the upper part of the changing European urban hierarchy. 

There is hardly any doubt that there has been and is a significant stability and continuity in the localization of trade, albeit not unlimi-ted. But even if one can properly perceive the Rialto Island or the Great Market in Bruges as a kind of CBD, the present article argues that there is a significant difference in the size and the layout of the area as well as the buildings. There were smaller areas involved, and it was only with industrialization that passages, department stores, business and office buildings were built. And although trade had almost replaced housing at the Rialto Island, it was an exception. After all we know it was only during industrialization that homes were displaced from the central business districts to a sizable extent – where there were no market halls and exchanges.

In extension of the continuity perception and the criticism of the stadium model, this article is arguing that business district formation occurred with different intensities, both geographically and chronologically. It was not a single phase that could or should be passed in a short, fixed numbers of years. Even in Stockholm, the city center was not transformed into a central business district from 1952 to 1974 through the large scale planning of the Swedish welfare state. The transformation took place over a long period and had roots back to the age when Sweden was a great power with Riksbank Building of 1675-82 as well as to the years around 1900 when a number of business and office buildings was constructed. Finally, the idea that there is always a dominant capitalist city, even though the leadership role changes and may be of different intensities, also counts against a stage model.

The understanding of business district formation has thus chan-ged in recent years. But it is still limited how much we know about the effect of it. Did it create economic growth? – to reformulate the English urban historian H.J. Dyos’ old question about urbanization. Or was it really necessary for economic growth?  Several authors, especially after 1970, have for example documented the importance of conservation efforts for the valuation and retention of parts of Rome, Paris, Vienna, Amsterdam, Stockholm’s Old Town and Copenhagen, and there are many examples of banks and others having reused older prestigious buildings instead of building new ones. Conversely, there have also been several cases where private actors and/or local city government have taken the initiative for extensive construction projects in the city centers. Examples are Liverpool, City of London, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Brussels, but also Paris and Vienna in periods.

My sketchy review of the depopulation in the central parts of a number of cities showed that in Paris and Vienna’s centers, where business district formation is supposed to have been slow, the resident population today is limited. In addition, the review indicates that depopulation largely followed the general economic growth in the various countries. But what is the reason and what effect? It emphasizes the need to involve housing and household structures, such as, for example, The Danish historian Jens Toftgaard has done for Odense. 

Compared to historical literature on urbanization and urban systems, it is striking that most studies of business district formation are confined to a single city, perhaps in part because several of the studies are rooted in the individual urban administrative body and its plans for the future of the city. This means that there is no overview of the phenomenon’s chronology and dissemination. This also applies to newer textbooks in urban history, where busi-ness district formation is only referred to as a functional-specialized area in the modern city, but without the differences between cities emerging. In addition to comparing cities, there is a need to look more closely at the companies that used the business district and the changes in the settlement over a long time perspective.

Several, like Lichtenberger and the American historian Philip Scranton, have pointed to the needs of the textile industry for retail outlets, warehouses, department stores, commercial warehouses and business buildings, as well as cloth halls and warehou-ses in connection with factory-organized production and proto-industry during the early stages of industrialization. And the impor-

tance of the textile industry appears clear both before the indu-strial revolution for example in Florence or Bruges and during the high industrial period where, for example, Ryland & Sons expanded their warehouses in several English cities and where the distribution of ready-made clothing expanded.

Company buildings, banks and insurance buildings were also an integral part of early commercial capitalism, but expanded during early industrialization, especially in London, and during the high industrial period in most European capitals. In addition inns and hotels had long served commercial travelers also with the storage of merchandise. Equally important were management or office buildings, such as the Uffizi, built in connection with the establishment of the “tax state” and later on the construction of a more comprehensive state apparatus. Finally, the number and areas of smaller office and service companies seem to have grown significantly during the high industrial period.

In conclusion, it seems as though the American economic historian Jan de Vries’ summary of the various consumer revolutions also captures the physical changes in the European business districts as far as we know it from the existing literature:

n Market halls and government offices during the Renaissance

n Company buildings as part of the court culture during the

Baroque era – but perhaps more related to merchant culture

n Department stores, warehouses and office buildings during 

the industrial revolution in England and North America from

the late 1700s

n Department stores and warehouses from the mid-1800s 

on the continent

n Skyscrapers and shopping malls from the interwar period 

associated with the modern mass consumption society in 

the United States - not dealt with here.

However, with the addition that market halls, warehouses, stalls and shops are also known from the Middle Ages and before, and that the city quarters became significantly larger during the industrial revolution and again during the high industrial period.