what is the difference between traditional city and historic city?
as you know tradition and history are integrated to each other, traditions are framed during the history and gradually, but I think these two types of cites can have some different situation. for example you can see numerous new design in your cities based on traditional forms and shapes but they are new. base of your design is on tradition but your work and design are not history, they are new, fresh. your construction not old , not ancient , your work is respond and respect to the history, and not history
to be somewhat cynical, probably the influence of Hobsbawm's 1983 Invention of Tradition, a historic city actually has a real footprint that is identifiable in history/archaeology, too often a traditional one is the result of some modern artificial creation that has declared something traditional
thanks . Reza Keshtkaran Timothy Edward Jones Michael Uebel , Shaymaa Fadhil Alkubaissy
Traditional city stands for s set of built environment systems in place that have proven their merit and sustained such and larger the time period richer would be tradition while historic city merely registers the transition of socio-economic for a specific political will could range from indigenous to colonial to post colonial or contemporary. Typically a historic city may not be a traditional city but the vice versa surly holds true.
The concepts of a traditional city and a historic city share many similarities, but there are significant differences between them. Here are the main variations:
Time Period: A traditional city refers to a city that adheres to conventional urban planning and development practices that have evolved gradually, irrespective of its historical duration. Conversely, a historic city specifically denotes a city that holds significant historical and cultural value by preserving its historical buildings, landmarks, and overall architectural style. Historic cities are often associated with a specific era or time period.
Architecture and Design: Traditional cities may exhibit a blend of architectural styles, including both contemporary and older structures. They typically encompass a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial areas. In contrast, historic cities tend to feature a more unified architectural style that mirrors the period of their prominence. These cities often house preserved or renovated historic buildings such as castles, palaces, churches, or other structures that embody the city's cultural heritage.
Cultural Heritage: Historic cities are renowned for their cultural heritage and the preservation of their historical significance. They may hold UNESCO World Heritage status or other forms of recognition owing to their exceptional historical value. While traditional cities may possess cultural significance, it might not be as pronounced or celebrated as in historic cities.
Tourist Attractions: Historic cities are favored tourist destinations due to their historical sites, museums, and cultural events. They allure visitors who seek to experience and learn about the city's rich heritage. In contrast, traditional cities, while having their own tourist attractions, often place greater emphasis on contemporary aspects like shopping centers, entertainment venues, or modern urban amenities.
Development and Growth: Traditional cities tend to be more receptive to modern urban planning and development practices. They may undergo urbanization, infrastructure improvements, and changes in their layout over time to accommodate population growth and economic progress. On the other hand, historic cities, due to their focus on preserving and safeguarding their historical character, often impose stricter regulations and restrictions on development and alterations to the city's appearance. The objective is to maintain the authenticity and historical integrity of the city.
It's worth noting that a city can possess elements of both traditional and historic characteristics, and these terms are not mutually exclusive. Some cities may have a historic core surrounded by more contemporary areas, or they may feature a combination of old and new architecture. The distinction between the two concepts can vary depending on the context and the specific city being discussed.
largely I agree with your narrative however in Asian context most of the historic cities are have traditional aspect nice and loud virtually inherent.
as u rightly mentioned its case specific but in case of Indian cities from Varanasi 1000 years old now our PM constituency ... to case os walled city of Jaipur my PhD case study wherein I traced sustainability for about 300 years ..... UNESCO tag invariability freezes the layer in timeline and comes at a cost often too much for the local communities to surmise..... shall pen more later...
Dear Anjali Krishan Sharma,
Thank you for sharing your perspective on historic cities, particularly in the Asian context. I appreciate your agreement with my narrative and your acknowledgment of the traditional aspect inherent in many of these cities. It's intriguing to hear about your specific case studies, such as the city of Varanasi, which holds a rich history spanning over a thousand years and happens to be the constituency of our Prime Minister. The walled city of Jaipur, which you studied for your PhD, also sounds fascinating, especially in terms of tracing sustainability over a remarkable 300-year period.
You raise an important point regarding the UNESCO tag and its impact on local communities. While it can provide recognition and preservation of these historic cities, it's crucial to consider the potential costs and challenges faced by the local communities. The freezing of the city's development in time can have various implications and may require careful thought and balance.
I genuinely appreciate your insights and would love to hear more about your research and observations on this subject whenever you have the opportunity to share further. Thank you once again for adding depth and nuance to the discussion.
Best regards,