dangernewton

Please keep off the grass: A study on how we view the ruination of architecture

In this essay I will begin by looking at three different ruined architectural sites from around the world and briefly discuss their individual histories. At the end I will talk about two similar places and then discuss their differences and how they could be viewed through tourism.

At 01:23hrs on 26th April 1986, reactor 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power station exploded. From its location in the former Soviet Union state of Ukraine, dangerous radioactive material leaked into the atmosphere and spread over a vast area of Russia and Europe, reaching even as far as Ireland. The immediate area was evacuated within two days and an exclusion zone of thirty kilometres was set up around the perimeter of the station. Within this area was the city of Prypiat, with a population of fifty thousand, whose location had been set up for the workers of the power station. After the accident whole forests around the site were turned brown, as well as the vast majority of the wildlife perishing. Even today the area inside the exclusion zone has the most toxic air on the planet. The area is almost entirely void of all human life and for this reason, despite the toxicity of the air; it has become a haven for wildlife. Animals such as boar, elk and wolves have thrived, as well as animals that have not been seen for many years, such as eagle owls and lynx. Bear paw marks have also been sighted. The surrounding woodland has flourished, although there are stories of strange mutations of plant life, such as weird twisted branches growing abnormally large. The city of Prypiat has remained (apart from some looting in the beginning of the 21st century) untouched from human hand since its evacuation twenty seven years ago. Because of the rush to move the city’s inhabits, many belongings were left behind or had to be left for fear of contamination. This now ghost town has become like a bubble frozen in time, documenting the late Soviet era through its remnants of propaganda posters and signs. Yet time has not been good for Prypiat, for without upkeep the city has degraded at an astonishing rate. Without the use of herbicide and pesticide, plant and animal life has thrived. With buildings left unprotected from the elements the structures are disintegrating at an accelerated rate and without maintenance, nature is reclaiming back the city.

The second ruin site that I am looking at is the Colosseum in Rome. It is one of the most imposing relics that remain from the near ancient world. Built in the 1st century A.D., its original use as a theatre to watch games ended sometime during the 6th century. Since then the derelict site has been used in many different ways. Among other uses it has been a fortress, farmland, housing, a hospital and shrine as well as being leased out as a quarry site to plunder for its stone. For grand tourists travelling from the West in the 17th and 18th centuries, Rome and the Colosseum were a must to visit. Many artists, writers and poets have been inspired by its structure over the years. Charles Dickens who wrote from Rome to home in 1846.

“To see the ghost of old Rome, wicked wonderful old city, haunting the very ground on which its people trod. It is the most impressive, the most stately, the most solemn, grand, majestic, mournful sight conceivable. Never, in its bloodiest prime, can the sight of the gigantic Coliseum, full and running over with the lustiest life, have moved one heart, as it must move all who look upon it now, a ruin. God be thanked: a ruin!” (Woodward, 2001:13)

Thirty years after Dickens’ visit, the city came under power of a different government, one whom permitted archaeologists to excavate the site of the Colosseum. In doing so they removed all the plants and trees, (previously the area had boasted 420 different species according to Richard Deakin’s book “flora of the Colosseum” in 1855 (Woodward, 2001: 23) as well as removing the sand from the arena and exposing the sewers and cellars. In doing this the arena flooded and became a lake for five years, making it uninhabitable.

My third ruin site can be found 90 kilometres south of Baghdad in Iraq. Here lie the remnants of Babylon city. It was once considered a myth, until European archaeologists discovered its foundations in the 19th century. The first recorded settlement there was almost 4500 years ago, coming to its height of power under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II in about 600 BC. The city was at this point the capital of a world empire with the largest population recorded to that date, and was famed for its hanging gardens which were considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The site is mentioned many times in the Bible for its greatness and as well as for its wickedness. Because of Nebuchadnezzar’s treatment towards the State of Israel, it was written in Isaiah 13:20-22;

“And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation. Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there. Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there. But desert creatures will lie down there and shaggy goats will frolic there. Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers and jackals in their luxurious palaces. Her fateful time also will soon come and her days will not be prolonged.” (Holy Bible)

On viewing the site today, you may consider that the once great city had indeed succumbed to divine retribution, as the only visible signs left of the once great city are just a few mounds of mud. Saddam Hussein’s rise to power came with his elected Presidency in 1979 under the Ba’ath political party. His ultimate goal was to unite the Arab countries together under one rule (his own) to create a modern day Babylonian super power. He felt that this was a prophecy, and that he was the son and heir to Nebuchadnezzar and his empire. Straight away he set out with the intention of rebuilding Babylon and his plans included palaces, a processional way, hanging gardens, as well as a tower of Babel. International experts and archaeologists on hearing this news were appalled, as he was planning to build on top of the original remains. Nobody knows what the original Babylon city looked like, so the project was more about recreating then restoring, much to the disgust of experts from around the world. The first building to go up was the palace of Nebuchadnezzar. On top of the original bricks (which still showed the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar), 60 million new ones were placed, inscribed in Arabic script with the name Saddam Hussein. Some read like this;

“In the reign of the victorious Saddam Hussein, the President of the republic, may God keep him the guardian of the great Iraq and the renovator of its renaissance and the builder of its great Civilization, the rebuilding of the great city of Babylon was done in 1987”. (New York Times website)

After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 the Babylon site was turned into an American army Camp. This included the use of heavily armoured land vehicles as well as an area being levelled and treated for a helicopter pad. To historians this was horrifying, with stories of destruction of artefacts caused by shooting practice, “souvenirs” taken home and sand bags being filled with fragments from around the area.

These three sites I have discussed are very different from one another, yet each one of them is today now marketed in their individual ways as tourist destinations. On visiting each of them, they would offer very different experiences to one another. The most obvious and widely visited tourist destination out of these three sites is the Colosseum in Rome. It is very easily accessible and tourist friendly. The area is kept clean and free from rubbish, weeds and vermin which is maintained through conservation. There is also a police presence and the site boasts 24 hour security. At any one time there are hundreds of tourists from around the world, making it a very crowded and noisy place, all of whom try to get the best view and photo opportunity. The experience of visiting the Colosseum today would be very different to that at the time of Charles Dickens and his predecessors. In the mid 19^th century the site was half submerged in plant life, the entrance to the interior was not barred and access could be gained day or night. There were no signs explaining the buildings use or age, entrances and exits were unclear and specific paths to take were unmarked. The site was inhabited by locals who were often suspicious of strangers, making a visit to the site potentially dangerous. For some time before the major excavation work on the Colosseum in 1874, numerous famous poets and artists visited the site, many of whom felt inspired from spending time there. Like the American romantic Edgar Allan Poe who wrote in 1833 on visiting the Colosseum;

“Lone amphitheatre, grey Coliseum of antique Rome. Rich reliquary of lofty contemplation left to time by buried centuries of pomp and power! A ruin-yet what a ruin!” (About.com Archaeology website)

As well the poet Lord Bryon of the same time wrote;

“But when the rising moon, begins to climb,

Its topmost arch, and gently pauses there;

When the stars twinkle through the loops of time,

And the low night-breeze waves along the air.

The garland forest, which the grey walls wear,

Like laurels on the bald first Caesar's head;

When the light shines serene but doth not glare;

Then in this magic circle raise the dead:

Heroes have trod this spot--'tis on their dust ye tread.” (About.com Archaeology website)

After the excavations of the late 19th century, it is hard to find anybody who was inspired by the “bald, dead and bare circle of stones” (Woodward 2001:31). However, Adolf Hitler and his architect Albert Speer who came on a state visit to Rome in 1938 as a guest of Mussolini were highly impressed by this site. On viewing, Hitler saw the Colosseum as a “representation of Imperial authority and often referred to it in his speeches as a durable community building” (Scobie, 1990: 74). Hitler longed for the Third Reich to have state architecture to match that of the ancient world. He considered the architecture of the former Weimar Republic to be a decline in Germanic culture. On return to Berlin he made Speer’s “theory of ruin value” (Third Reich in Ruins website) a policy, which suggested using “natural” materials, such as stone, as opposed to reinforced concrete, and avoiding steel girders in all state buildings. In doing so he believed they would eventually become more aesthetically pleasing ruins. As Speer wrote in his memoirs;

“Ultimately, all that remained to remind men of the great epochs of history was their monumental architecture, he recalled. What then remained of the emperors of the Roman Empire? What would still give evidence of them today, if not their buildings...So, today the buildings of ancient Rome could enable Mussolini to refer to the heroic spirit of Rome when he wanted to inspire his people with the idea of a modern imperium. Our buildings must speak to the conscience of future generations of Germans. With this argument Hitler also understood the value of a durable kind of construction.” (New York Times website)

Hitler planned for the Reich to stand for a 1000 years as the world super power and its architecture to be a symbolic message of the state’s greatness through its grandiose monuments. Hussein’s building plans echo that of Hitler’s in so much as wanting to leave behind a legacy. It seems that “the artist and poet sees a ruin but the dictator sees a monument” (Woodward, 2001:30). Hussein’s reconstruction of Nebuchnezzar palace was used as an emblem of his power rather than a functional building. Accused by some as “Saddam Hussein kitsch and Disney for a Despot” (New York Times website), the palace is not to everybody’s taste, with painted panoramic murals of ancient Babylon and gold plumbing fixtures. Despite scorning from world historians, this design was an improvement from its previous state for the locals, who were unimpressed with the mounds of earth especially since everything of any worth had been pillaged at the beginning of the 20th century by the French, English and Germans. As for the tourism industry in Babylon there a plans to soon turn this former palace into a five star hotel, and for $225 a night you can stay in the honeymoon suite, the former dictator’s bedroom. Back in the Ukraine you can also take a guided tour round the Chernobyl site and Prypiat city, and view the ghost town first hand.

I will now discuss two different approaches of viewing ruined sites. Firstly there is the heritage industry and consumer tourism which promote protection to historic environments and education through research. These sites are organised and controlled and employ many staff. Specific routes that take in points of interest, as well as entrances and exits, are often clearly marked. There often tends to be easy access for coaches and cars.

In opposition to these sites are unauthorised areas, which may include abandoned industrial warehouses, derelict private property and generally unused urban areas. These sites are closed off to the general public mainly for safety reasons. These areas once would have had a function, and may well be revitalised in the future. For now though they are deemed useless and any objects left behind as worthless. This is in contrast to Heritage sites where objects on view may be deemed as being priceless. A visit to an unapproved ruin site compared to one such as an English Heritage would be a completely different experience. Access into the site may be awkward and once in, there may be no clear path to take. The place is likely to be dirty and chaotic, as well potentially dangerous. For someone who is interested in ruins and enjoys visiting such places, these unauthorised sites are often seen as an “anti tourism” (Edensor, 2005:95), where one could escape the “Disneyfication” (Giddens, 2006) of the heritage sites. Disneyfication is the concept that many tourist attractions have merely become theme parks through the stripping of their original character and repackaging to create a tourist friendly, global encounter. In this way, the location of the site may be irrelevant, as the experience is often the same all over the world. In an unauthorised space the senses are heightened as people are free to interact with their surroundings. There are no signs and so the individual’s imagination is free to interpret its surroundings. People may go through a range of different emotions, such as fear of safety, excitement and the possibility of the unexpected.

To conclude this essay, I wish to say that I am not opposed to the conservation of historical buildings, nor do I wish to promote people to trespass onto private property in order to view historical sites. I do however feel that in this modern, global era, tourism has resulted in an ever increasing and demanding need for a greater explanation of one’s surroundings. We have increasingly come to expect comfort and amenities within popular tourist destinations. This in turn has resulted in the categorisation of certain animals as vermin and certain plants as weeds. We have also begun to accept constant and often intrusive surveillance (for example, the use of CCTV and bag searches have become the norm) in order to make us feel safer. With the reassurance of official and authenticated information that has become readily available, along with the rise of consumerism which can be seen at historical tourist sites, we tend to have little need for an imagination and in turn less of a chance of experiencing something magical.