Quote:
Originally Posted by le calmar
I think they were very similar in form, but eventually took a different direction during their evolution. New Amsterdam (New York) was basically a little Dutch town. The urban form of New Haven, CT hasn't changed from the very beginning and you still have that old English town feel in the center. Montreal was built around a marketplace (Place Royale) a la française, surrounded by walls, which is a lot like medieval towns in Europe. I am not sure about Quebec City since the "habitation" concept was new, but the urban form was probably very european as well.
|
Very interesting debate! And I think you're right for the oldest villages / towns (back to the 1600's / in New England, New France, New Amsterdam). These thus became major cities today, with few exceptions.
However, it is interesting to see what happened
when a systematic colonization of the land started. In New France, for example, the authorities adopted the "range" system (seigneuries). This system shaped most of the villages we know today in the Saint Lawrence valley : villages organized along a long main street, with common land a church place in the center. The cities that developed from this system have long blocks following the longitudinal division of the land (Montreal, for example).
After the conquest, a new system came, much inspired by what prevailed in England (the township system), but applied systematically on an almost virgin land. Most English canadian towns originated from this system, including in the Eastern Townships, Upper Canada... The prairies also, later.
Thereafter, in the end of the 1700s and in the 1800s, even in the 1900s, real north american urban forms took shape (in continuity / or rupture with the colonization forms previously developed)... City beautiful, boom towns... and many more. Utopian visionaries from Europe and America shaped the north american city in the 19th century (according to Jane Jacobs and others). In the USA, these "new ways" even came earlier, Philadelphia or Washington D.C. being examples.
IMHO, what explains that Canada (and on a global scale - North America) does not feature villages that look or feel like what you can find in Europe (as it seems to be an object of debate in here) lies there. In our "systematical colonization" history, which since the beginning or almost, is way different, new.
It relies on our relationship with the territory. And we must not (IMHO again) diminish this heritage we share, but look at it with informed eyes, and see it for the qualities it actually has.
BTW, sorry if some of my sentences do not seem to make sense. I am still (and always) working on my English