Prague vs Budapest
I still, vaguely, remember one of Le Corbusier’s quotes about city planning; it is like playing with all the things found on your breakfast table. I heard this phrase during my first year in architecture and, it may sound funny but, I honestly think this moment was my very first interaction with urban design. This phrase recently came to my mind again, when I decided to write this blog post about Prague vs Budapest.
Both are medieval cities sharing many similarities from the castle complexes, hilly topography and relationship with the river to the rich architecture and spectacular views across sides. In other words, linking back to Le Corbusier’s quote, it is quite fascinating the fact that even though both cities, at a first glance, share a similar ‘breakfast table’, they somehow show different spatial dynamics and generate different senses of place.
This blog post will touch on the spatial qualities of these two, morphologically similar, places and try to explain why and how these different dynamics are created.
SPATIAL DYNAMICS IN THE TWO CITIES
STREETS
The feeling one has when walking on the street is enough to shape his/her perception of the entire place. The organic street patterns that prevail in the city centre of Prague, as well as in Mala Strana on the opposite side of River Vltava, generate a strong sense of enclosure which, combined with narrow alleys, spectacular architecture, spill out cafes and public squares, create a human-scale environment; the ideal place for pedestrians. An organic street network generates interesting perspectives and a constant element of surprise.
Budapest, on the other hand, does the exact opposite; the city offers a modern environment with a glimpse at the past, at places. In particular, the orthocanonic grid prevails including wide avenues in boulevard-style (e.g. Karoly Krt., Rakoczi Ut and Andrassy Ut.) and large public squares, whilst there are also areas where some organic patterns remain intact (e.g. Castle Hill). Thus, the overall place, although offers some visual variety due to the mixture of patterns, promotes a less human-scale environment.
In addition to this, Prague also offers a sense of an almost car-free environment. The organic patterns, narrow alleys and lack of wide streets in the inner city cores create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. This characteristic, combined with the compact layout of Prague’s fabric, makes people perceive the city smaller than it actually is, making walking easy. On the other hand, Budapest is perceived, and promoted, as a metropolitan city and it seems that vehicular movement is prioritised over pedestrian flow hindering walkability. Of course, that is not to say that Budapest does not offer car-free routes at all; however, when compared to Prague, the issues and weaknesses are more apparent.
ACTIVITY NODES
Focal points and other points of interest affect the pedestrian patterns in a place. Prague and Budapest differ on that aspect as well, since each city encourages a different approach. In particular, Prague is characterised by concentrated pedestrian patterns, mainly within the historic cores and along Charles Bridge and Most Legii Bridge. The reason why these flows seem to be chosen by the majority of the people can be traced back to the location of the focal points. In other words, due to the compact layout of the city and the concentration of most of the focal points within the main cores, people’s preferences and thus, flows tend to overlap.
However, in Budapest where the points of interest are spread out, people’s preferences tend to vary and thus, pedestrian flows are more unpredictable. From a personal experience, I vividly remember that after 2 days walking around Prague, I was seeing familiar faces, since we were all following the same routes, whilst I cannot say the same about my experience when walking in Budapest.
Legibility and wayfinding work better in Prague, due to the compact layout of the city and the numerous activity nodes in every corner. These make it easier for people to memorise routes. They have the luxury to be spontaneous and wander around the city without checking the GPS every 5 minutes. The pocket squares, narrow alleys, footways and wide pedestrianised commercial streets, all put together they create the perfect mental map for the city.
In Budapest, legibility works well at places like Buda, due to the landscape and meandering lanes, or along the boulevards which lead or connect to strategic places. The rest of the city creates confusion and for that reason, it feels safer to take main roads, since most of the landmarks are found along these anyway. In Prague, however, one feels safe enough to take a less busy alley and explore the route, possibly, because the compact layout and hidden jewels in every corner offer 2 in 1; safety and the element of surprise.
WATER
Proximity to the water characterises both cities and although one would expect to see interesting interactions along the riverfront, the reality is less fascinating. Both cities are bisected by a river and both have amazing opportunities to explore and capitalise on. Budapest has shown some progress, but Prague has still a long way to go.
Budapest’s riverfront offers a variety of different kinds of interactions with the river which are also analysed in another blog post of mine: First observations and other remarks on place-making after a short trip to Budapest. In summary, the presence of the tram line and the main road running along the riverfront, at most parts of it, create strong barriers that block direct pedestrian flows towards the water. However, this barrier is partially mitigated due to level differences which have allowed for promenade stretches with active frontages and views to the opposite side. In addition to this, there are also sections of the riverfront that have been recently improved with seating areas, lights, cycle routes and wide public realm.
When it comes to Prague, on the other hand, the riverfront is disconnected from the rest of the city and this clearly shows Prague’s intention to continue investing in the internal core and nowhere else. The riverfront is not very welcoming since there are limited active frontages to attract movement and thus, life. It mainly serves as a medium to accommodate movement and that is all.
However, it is important to note that the weather has played an important role in the relationship between the cities and the water over the years, since the climate is characterised by cold and windy winters. It made perfect sense then, that the riverfront would not be the first place someone would choose to visit during the winter or autumn. Having said that, as the years go by and climate changes, some different approaches are coming forward, especially in Budapest, that seem to embrace the ‘mediterranean’ version of the riverfront with spill out cafes, restaurants and parks.
ARCHITECTURE
Both cities are characterised by rich local vernacular and architectural styles deriving from different historical periods including Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassical, Art Nouveau, and Contemporary Architecture. There is no doubt that both have a great envelope of historic landmarks and monuments to show. However, what is more important, in terms of spatial analysis, is how the city’s fabric and configuration allow people to embrace the architecture and truly feel it. In forums, Prague seems to attract more positive feedback when it comes to architecture; but is it because Prague indeed has more to offer compared to Budapest or is it because Prague makes these assets feel more accessible?
The way that the built environment is formed plays an important role in perceiving architecture; it is not just about the building itself. In Prague, most of the built environment is quite enclosed. A human-scale environment makes people feel closer and more connected to their surroundings and this affects how they might feel about the architecture as well. In addition, the ‘old flavour’ that the city offers contributes to a positive perception of the surrounding environment and this, to a lay person’s eye, is also part of the architectural feel.
In Budapest, on the other hand, most of the landmarks are monumental-scale surrounded by large squares or avenues. This, although offers a feel of openness in the area, it also decreases the sense of enclosure and promotes a more grandiose feel. Low levels of enclosure tend to also create a level of ‘distance’ between the person and the surrounding environment which might have an effect on how one perceives the architecture in that particular place.
Overall, when it comes to evaluating the architecture of a place, people tend to throw more parameters in the mixture than just the buildings themselves, whether they realise it or not. The surroundings, the route they took to get there, the feeling they had when walking along the street during day or night, all those little things matter. When people say that ‘Prague is more beautiful’ or ‘Budapest needs more time to be explored’, what they really mean, and this would be one way to interpret this, is that things in one place feel easily accessible and can be found with little effort, whilst in the other place they are not.
THE OVERALL SENSE AND BIG CHALLENGE
OVERALL SENSE OF BUDAPEST
Clearly a metropolitan city that encourages an extroverted attitude. There are points of interest in every direction. Budapest is all about experiences; admiring the breathtaking architecture and building landmarks, experiencing both the city vibe in Pest as well as the medieval vibe in Buda, enjoying the views towards the river and the opposite side, going to the Baths, trying the delicious cuisine, the Ruin pubs and nightlife or even travelling in the suburbs to enjoy nature. It is a city that constantly evolves trying to embrace new norms and modern design and this can be witnessed from the refurbishment of derelict buildings and warehouses into Balne shopping centre or from the interventions along some parts of the riverfront trying to bring people closer to the water. A city that is worth taking your time to explore!
THE BIG CHALLENGE
Being a metropolitan city there are also some drawbacks; traffic, chaos and a non-human-scale environment. The big challenge for Budapest is to prioritise pedestrians and mitigate traffic within the city centre. Traffic creates a greater barrier than the wide avenue itself. With that in mind, the city needs to create a nice narrative, via wayfinding, attractive streets, green crossings, interventions to act as focal points and navigate people around. This narrative can be a start of a ‘place-branding’ for Budapest aiming to establish it as a city that ecompasses all the benefits of a metropolitan hub, like London, whilst keeping the negatives away.
OVERALL SENSE OF PRAGUE
A capital city which has the luxury of a compact grid making everything easily accessible on foot and to human-scale; the perfect combination for a dream city. It is not a car-free environment, but it surely feels like one. Vehicles have been defeated by the crowds of people and the narrow alleys. Prague is a city that knows how to tell a story of a beautifully preserved place with narrow active streets, busy plazas and ‘chocolate-boxed’ buildings; all blended nicely and in perfect harmony. It is an introverted city that promotes activity in its internal cores thanks to the central location of many points of interest. Overall, an accessible city that can be explored in a limited amount of days – ideal for tourists!
THE BIG CHALLENGE
The city is established as one of the most touristic European destinations with people visiting it from all over the world. Ironically, this is the city’s biggest challenge as well; how to avoid the Disney world effect and create a place for both locals and tourists. The city needs to become more extroverted and break the concentrated movement patterns that it has been promoting till today. Prague needs to open up and spread the crowds by offering people more choices outside the internal cores. To do that, the narrative needs to be revised and more interesting routes need to be added. The riverfront can play an important role, since the infrastructure is already there, and welcome more people to stay, relax and enjoy the views towards the river. The loss of identity that the city so desperately trying to avoid, is not only about preserving the buildings themselves, but also about preserving the urban fabric around them.
Overall, from the above observations it seems that these two cities complement each other, since one’s strengths are the other one’s weaknesses. It is fascinating to observe different approaches taken from morphologically similar cities; an extroverted/modern and an introverted/romantic one. One (Prague) that desperately tries to retain the old glory and scale of the past failing to realise that the increasing demand erodes its very old core and the other one (Budapest) that tries to embrace the change and keep up with modern approaches, but struggles with the challenges that, being a metropolitan city, brings.
If you, or a friend of yours, are planning a trip to either of those cities, feel free to check out the itineraries I have created: Budapest (Link 1) and Prague (Link 2). These itineraries promise a unique experience of both cities drawn up from an urban designer’s perspective, myself. The aim is, for the traveller, to experience the different character areas and qualities of Budapest and Prague, the architecture and other key features, whilst also going one step further, under the surface, to analyse the surroundings. Overall, these itineraries summarise all the points I have highlighted in this blog post.