Ancient Urban Planning Principles at a Modern University Campus

Guest post by Yui Kamoda

*** NOTE:  Today’s entry was written by Yui Kamoda, a student in my class, “The Earliest Cities.” Students in the class write papers on planning in ancient cities, applying my model of ancient urban planning (Smith 2007). This semester I added a new project: examine the university campus using this model. This was experimental; I had no idea whether the ancient planning principles would yield insight into the layout of the campus. The students enjoyed their fieldwork, and I asked Yui to edit her paper for this blog post. Yui Kamoda is an anthropology major from Sitama prefecture, a suburb of Tokyo, Japan. She finished high school in Japan and came to the United States. After two years at Alfred State College (in New York State), she is now an anthropology major at Arizona State University. She is a volunteer in our comparative urbanism project (“Urban Organization through the Ages”), working on ancient Chinese cities such as Chang’an and Anyang. She is an event coordinator with the Japanese Student Association, which cultivates a better understanding of Japanese culture and language. ***

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campus Map

            Unlike typical Japanese universities, where all the classrooms are packed in just a few buildings and school itself is surrounded by a gate with only two entrances, Arizona State University (“ASU”) covers 2.6 km² and is pretty much open to the public. It does not have a gate and there are streets in campus connecting to the major public streets. At the first glace, buildings in Tempe Campus seems like they are randomly located. However, once we take a closer look and follow the features of urban planning, it is clear that the layouts and arrangements of buildings are planned. In this paper, I discuss principles of urban planning on the ASU campus in terms of these five features: symmetry, axiality, monumentality, access, and viewshed. These five features are fundamental aspects of planning in ancient cities (Smith 2007), which means that most ancient cities were built with respect to them. But are these features applicable to the modern planning of the ASU campus? Let’s take a look.

(1) Formality: Symmetry

Fig 1 - Dixie Gammage & West Halls

            At first glance, Dixie Gammage Hall and West Hall in the west side of campus do not look alike or symmetrical, but they are symmetrically built from the perspective of the “secret garden” which is located in the middle of the two buildings (Figure 1). Because those buildings were established as residential halls, the garden was created inside of it to let residents interact each other. Palm Walk is also symmetrically planned when we consider how neatly palm trees are planted at even interval from each other (Figure 2). This feature reminds me of the entrance of Taji Mahal in India which not only its magnificent building, but also the lines of trees and streets in front of entrance are punctually in a manner of symmetry. As same as Taji Mahal, Palm Walk conveys us the unity of its form of planning.

Fig 2 - Palm Walk

 (2) Formality: Axiality

            Axiality is defined as “the use of straight avenues” by Dr. Smith (2007). The most impressive straight avenue in campus is Palm Walk extending 0.4 miles from the ASU Bridge to the Student Recreation Center. 70 to 90 foot-tall palm trees line both side of the street. This street makes me think that I am in Arizona, where the highest temperature is above 100F at summer, because palm trees are a symbol of warm weather (these trees are planted in Hawaii). For students who come from the east coast, this palm walk gives the sense of rich nature. Also, Tyler Mall running between Social Science and Old Main, Forest Mall running through Coor Hall and Dixie Gammage Hall, and Cady Mall, running between School of Human Evolution and Social Change and Language and Literature, are also the streets which show axiality (see map). The differences between Palm Walk and theses other streets are their width. Because these Malls were made for relieving congestion of crowds going back and forth to campus, they are built wider than Palm Walk.

(3) Monumentality

Fig 3 - Hayden Library

            Dr. Smith states in his article that Monumentality refers to buildings which are much larger than they need to be to function (Smith 2007). From this perspective, most of buildings do not represent monumentality because they need to house 60,000 students. The number of students in ASU is 20 times as many as that of my community college in New York and each building in ASU is so massive. However, from the aspect of middle-level meaning, which is “the transmission of messages about identity, status, and power” (Smith 2007), Hayden Library and Gammage Auditorium are representative of monumentality. When we enter Hayden Library (figure 3), we need to walk downstairs. Unlike a library in my community college which has just two floors and basement, Hayden Library has 4^th floors and basement, with a formal entrance. This indicates ASU spends much money on facilities for studying. Gammage Auditorium (figure 4) is a huge circular-shaped theater designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. For lining seats up in a circle to let all of audience in different sections able to see a front stage; thus the auditorium itself is build in a circular shape. This auditorium gives people impression that ASU has large amount of money which can be used not only for classrooms but also for recreation and community development.

Fig 4 - Gammage Auditorium

(4) Access

Unlike universities in Japan, accessibility to this campus from outside is high as I stated in introduction. For not only on-campus students, but also off-campus students, the campus has streets connecting to public roads and no gate surrounding the campus However, most buildings have limited access to enter. Memorial Union is an exception - it has a lot of doors which students can enter from any direction because this building is in the middle of campus and functions to serve food. When we look at Social Science building or Student Recreation Center, they have just one or two entrance. Also, Hayden Library has just one entrance underneath and the library building.

(5) Viewshed

            There are two types of viewshed: Outward viewshed which is the view outward from buildings and inward viewshed which is the view from the ground. Because buildings line up close each other, there are few cases of wide viewshed in this campus. However, Palm Walk can be seen as an example of inward viewshed because when we stand on this street, our view is set as a straight forward and what we can see is the endless avenue (Figure 2). In my opinion, especially outward view was used in ancient time to make rulers believe that everything they could see is their property and they are on top of the world. However, here the campus is built for students and all the students have equal opportunities to be on top of the world! Also, the campus expanded gradually along with increase of the number of students. Thus, inward view might have not been taken into consideration.

(6) Open Spaces

Fig 5 - Hayden Lawn

            There are only a few large formal open spaces in this campus, such as Hayden Lawn (Figure 5) and the secret garden. Hayden Lawn is used for variety of campus events. Although there are countless of students and it makes it difficult for them to all interact with others, this open space is a gathering spot for students. Once we step into this field and join some activities, we can meet new friends and share information. On campus, open space serves the space to let students interact and organize themselves.

Conclusion

            Through this project, it is clarified that the campus planning pattern has some resemblances to the principles of ancient urban planning. However, in terms of viewshed, it does not have anything to do with Tempe campus. The most applicable theory to this campus planning is “group design” (Smith 2007). At the first glance, each building has its own identity and stands randomly. As it was used in ancient time, it is still used in modern time: all the science and psychological buildings are packed at the corner in the north of campus; anthropology and sociology buildings are in the middle; biology buildings are behind them; Engineering buildings are located along with Palm Walk; and newly established buildings are at the edge of the east side of campus. In this paper, I show that four of the five planning features — symmetry, axiality, monumentality, access and viewshed — are present in the ASU campus, along with formal open spaces. These features were first used in settlements in ancient time and they serve to define planning for archaeologists studying ancient cities. But they are still used in 21^st century, and they help us understand urban planning on the ASU campus.

Reference:

Smith, Michael E.

2007    Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New Approach to Ancient Urban Planning. Journal of Planning History 6(1):3-47.