Bath: Updating Myths with Correct Mistakes

As Halloween approaches, I am always amazed at the contemporary translation of “ancient” costumes. Take, for example, the sexy gladiator. Or foxy Cleopatra. Better yet, the oh-so-predictable Roman plebeian in a revealing toga. Surely the Armani’s of ancient Rome did not envision their designs to come to fruition in the 21st century in the form of bed sheets and plastic grapes.

It seems that the same notion of translation has occurred in the picturesque city of Bath, but this time manifested in what I might call “Roman-eclectic” urban planning.

As described to me by my Professor Jeremy Melvin, it seems that 19th century planner John Wood decided to rebuild Bath based on its Roman tradition and his “vague” knowledge of Classical architecture. So what did he do? He decided to organize Bath around three central elements: a grand plan, a circus, and a gymnasium. Or, at least, what he thought these elements were (Wood had, in fact, never been to Rome, nor seen detailed plans or drawings of Roman architecture).



While the Roman baths were part of the existing infrastructure of the city, Wood decided that by infusing Bath with elements of Roman mythical history, classical and British traditions would be complimentary elements of a well-planned city.

Strangely enough, it worked. It seems that in borrowing Roman forms such as the circus to become the new porous cul de sac and adapting the Royal Crescent of homogeneous stone row houses perched elegantly above the city, Wood was able to create a formal and urban order that adapts to Bath’s varied valley topography.



Perhaps something can be learned from Wood’s strategy. While I do not recommend we encourage today’s urban planners to design cities based on their vague knowledge of the lost continent of Atlantis or the mythical worlds of what I call “boutique geek” literature, it seems fairly logical to adapt previous successful structures and plans to utilize new technologies and building strategies.

But maybe I am stating the obvious.

Despite many peoples’ love for modernism (a sentiment I experienced at a lecture at the Royal Academy this past Tuesday, where Professor Jules Lubbock was attacked for championing ornament, as well as for his loaded statement “the public detests modern architecture!”), it is clear that people like “updated” familiarity.


While I am not championing McMansion’s dressed in Colonial garb, nor do I support the “sexy” costume update of every historical and mythical figure known to man (the movie 300 is a ridiculous testimony to this), I believe wholeheartedly in the notion of smart adaptability.

For example, take the 200-year-old European passive house model based on simple daylighting strategies and passive heating and cooling by means of strategic ventilation. Within the past ten years, the passivhaus model has been aggressively adapted and paired with new technologies by many LEED and sustainable-minded architects to create homes that run on little to zero energy.

While Bath is certainly not quite the model for zero energy (I’m afraid drizzly England isn’t prime country for solar panels nor is its historical town center built to accommodate hydrogen fuel cells), it is a well-planned city with a smart mix of charm and vision.