4 ms·

The presence of a comprehensive urban plan for all of these cities, with a clear grid subdivided into districts is extremely impressive. By contrast most Europe

The presence of a comprehensive urban plan for all of these cities, with a clear grid subdivided into districts is extremely impressive. By contrast most European cities were organic and unplanned mazes.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwup238 2y ago
The grid is still visible in Mexico City today. All the canals you see in the reconstruction essentially became the streets as they were gradually filled in.
noelwelsh 2y ago
As a counterpoint, I much prefer the street layout of European cities to grids. I don't think the grid is particularly impressive; just a sign of a particular urban organization.
- venusenvy47 2y ago
  What type of layout do these use?
  - noelwelsh 2y ago
    It's basically a tree.
staplung 2y ago
Not to undermine what they did in any way but one thing the Mexica had that favored a strong grid with central planning was that each new bit of the city was built on land that had to be created from scratch. If you're going to build a new "neighborhood" from the lake, might as well make it rectangular. To some extent, they didn't even have to dig their canals, just leave bits of the lake not filled in (though there is more to making canals than just digging a ditch). Having said all that it certainly seems that ancient Meso-American city builders of all stripes were really into grid-tastic cities, at least for the monumental cores with the temples, ball courts etc.
ajross 2y ago
That's sort of a simplification. Medieval European cities were absolutely "planned," but generally as defensive structures. The nature of feudal government is that it discourages investment in big centralized "cities" and builds a ton of little forts for individual aristocrats instead. So by the time the economics of Renaissance trade effectively forced the cities on the governments, the floorplans were already set and things didn't fit. Tenochtitlan, in comparison, was purpose-built as the seat of an empire (and a recent one, in fact). The centralized authority was there from the start.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  Indeed. European rulers did do a bit of planning when the chance arose. For example, Lisbon was rebuilt in a grid after the 1755 earthquake: > Keen to have a new and perfectly ordered city, the king commissioned the construction of big squares, rectilinear, large avenues and widened streets – the new mottos of Lisbon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake Paris as we currently know it is the work of Haussmann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
robwwilliams 2y ago
Almost all inland Celtic “cities” of western Europe were built around strong fortifiable positions, aka oppida. They were definitely well planned for defense against tribal warfare and tribal invasions. Aztec cities (probably all cities) had similar root motivations—-control and defend territory. Bibracte near Autun in Burgundy — the city Julius Ceasar had to conquer — is built at the top of a 900 meter hill; Pyrene/Heuneburg built on a rocky spur overlooking the Danube in southern Germany is considered the first real city north of the Alps. Titelberg in Luxembourg was built on a site easily defended on three of four sides and with plenty of space at the top. One interesting exception—-Milan (Mediolanum). Like ancient Mexico City its defenses consisted of water; tributaries to the Po and surrounding marshes. Venice is even more like Tenochtitlan and a more radical and more “modern” version of Milan. The Venetia hit chased into their lagoon thanks to Attila and waves if Goths. You are right that Tenochtitlan had a much more obviously planned lurban structure. But the “organics” of Venice have their own logic, partly partly due to tides and winds but mainly due to a focus on commercial districts rather than religious/ceremonial districts. In 1500 both cities were very large: Tenochtitlan was close to 300,000 and Venice close to 200,000.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sprkv5 2y ago
When we talk about cities with a grid plan, all the cited examples in sibling comments pale in comparison to Mohenjo-daro. It existed around 2500 BC and one of the iconic places is the Great Bath which is the "earliest public water tank of the ancient world". Tenochtitlan existed in the 15th century which is fairly recent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throwup238 2y ago

The grid is still visible in Mexico City today. All the canals you see in the reconstruction essentially became the streets as they were gradually filled in.

noelwelsh 2y ago

As a counterpoint, I much prefer the street layout of European cities to grids. I don't think the grid is particularly impressive; just a sign of a particular urban organization.

venusenvy47 2y ago
What type of layout do these use?
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  It's basically a tree.

staplung 2y ago

Not to undermine what they did in any way but one thing the Mexica had that favored a strong grid with central planning was that each new bit of the city was built on land that had to be created from scratch. If you're going to build a new "neighborhood" from the lake, might as well make it rectangular. To some extent, they didn't even have to dig their canals, just leave bits of the lake not filled in (though there is more to making canals than just digging a ditch). Having said all that it certainly seems that ancient Meso-American city builders of all stripes were really into grid-tastic cities, at least for the monumental cores with the temples, ball courts etc.

ajross 2y ago

That's sort of a simplification. Medieval European cities were absolutely "planned," but generally as defensive structures. The nature of feudal government is that it discourages investment in big centralized "cities" and builds a ton of little forts for individual aristocrats instead. So by the time the economics of Renaissance trade effectively forced the cities on the governments, the floorplans were already set and things didn't fit. Tenochtitlan, in comparison, was purpose-built as the seat of an empire (and a recent one, in fact). The centralized authority was there from the start.

noelwelsh 2y ago
Indeed. European rulers did do a bit of planning when the chance arose. For example, Lisbon was rebuilt in a grid after the 1755 earthquake: > Keen to have a new and perfectly ordered city, the king commissioned the construction of big squares, rectilinear, large avenues and widened streets – the new mottos of Lisbon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake Paris as we currently know it is the work of Haussmann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...

robwwilliams 2y ago

Almost all inland Celtic “cities” of western Europe were built around strong fortifiable positions, aka oppida. They were definitely well planned for defense against tribal warfare and tribal invasions. Aztec cities (probably all cities) had similar root motivations—-control and defend territory. Bibracte near Autun in Burgundy — the city Julius Ceasar had to conquer — is built at the top of a 900 meter hill; Pyrene/Heuneburg built on a rocky spur overlooking the Danube in southern Germany is considered the first real city north of the Alps. Titelberg in Luxembourg was built on a site easily defended on three of four sides and with plenty of space at the top. One interesting exception—-Milan (Mediolanum). Like ancient Mexico City its defenses consisted of water; tributaries to the Po and surrounding marshes. Venice is even more like Tenochtitlan and a more radical and more “modern” version of Milan. The Venetia hit chased into their lagoon thanks to Attila and waves if Goths. You are right that Tenochtitlan had a much more obviously planned lurban structure. But the “organics” of Venice have their own logic, partly partly due to tides and winds but mainly due to a focus on commercial districts rather than religious/ceremonial districts. In 1500 both cities were very large: Tenochtitlan was close to 300,000 and Venice close to 200,000.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sprkv5 2y ago

When we talk about cities with a grid plan, all the cited examples in sibling comments pale in comparison to Mohenjo-daro. It existed around 2500 BC and one of the iconic places is the Great Bath which is the "earliest public water tank of the ancient world". Tenochtitlan existed in the 15th century which is fairly recent.