King's Landing: Why does it suck so much?

[Graydon Hicks]

the poor are always drawn to cities, where gaining some sort of aid is far easier than in a sparsely populated country side. they expect to be able to find work somewhere, maybe in taverns, shops, crafthalls, even whore houses. they see the city as a way to get out of the elements, where there is cover from storms, some sort of shelter from the long winters, and always the chance to maybe get away from it all by oarding ship to great unknown which must be far better than their current lots in life. but once they arrive, the reality sets in, the possibilities they dreamed arent there, or its even worse. and as they likely spent all they own just to get to the city, they no longer have  means to leave it again. so the poor begin to accumulate, with no where to go.

i think that several targ kings have sought to improve the state of the capital, only to die before their plans come to fruition, and their successors end up per-occupied with other matters. what do you want to bet there are entire blocks of the city that have sat, mid excavation and refurbishment, for decades on end? progects that got started but never finished. i know aerys made a swing at renovating the  city at least once, then switched to another project.

and unlike the other cities, which likely grew slowly to their current size and state over the course of  centuries, if not millenia, King's landing is less than 300 years old, and grew very, very quickly for a city of its current size. the slower growth of the older cities gave those cities, and their administrators, time to improve the infrastructure as the cities increased in size. but kings landing grew in leaps and bounds, with an almost constant influx of denizens, forcing a rapid expansion before the appropriate infrastructure for even the city's previous size could be prepared.

 in short, i believe its a case of the city grew too big, too quickly.

[Lord Vance II]

37 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

i know aerys made a swing at renovating the  city at least once, then switched to another project.

Aerys made a pitch at saying screw the whole thing and build a new, marble city on the south shore of the Blackwater. It never got off the ground, of course. 

But yeah, the growth speed is probably a big factor, but I still think Aegon could have made a major difference if he had taken some initiative in the city planning. It just baffles me that someone who went through the trouble of conquering an entire continent couldn't be bothered to plan out is namesake (basically) out a little better, or import some engineers from the Free Cities to plan it out. 

[Graydon Hicks]

well, maybe the free cities were still recovering from the loss of Valyria proper? aegon's conquest was only about 2-3 generations from the doom, right? and the free cities had been outlying colonies and holdings of the freehold, its daughters. so maybe with the loss of valyria, the free cities were still in the process of re-organizing themselves, and aegon couldnt call on them. and was aegon set on maintianing his position on the blackwater, or maybe he planned on re-locating to another site? or did the growth of the city really take off after aegon died and his sons took over? i know it was maegor who began the building of the red keep, so maybe the real influx of population didnt really start until the castle was being built.

[syrinx]

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

Technology permits Oldtown and White Harbour, along with Lannisport and Gulltown.

It could have permitted a number of smaller towns. It is institutions that are behind lack of such.

Whose business, precisely, is it to cobble small streets of Oldtown and White Harbour?

Technology does not only determine the maximum size of cities, but also the number of large cities that a certain geographical expanse can sustain. If transportation costs fall and trade increases than more important trading centers can emerge. If agricultural productivity improves, the degree of urbanization can increase even keeping quality of the soil stable. And so on.

[Lord Vance II]

1 hour ago, syrinx said:

Technology does not only determine the maximum size of cities, but also the number of large cities that a certain geographical expanse can sustain. If transportation costs fall and trade increases than more important trading centers can emerge.

But none of these issues are apparent. If anything, a full continent with tens of millions of citizens and ample farmland with growing seasons that last years should have more that 5 cities, all of which are relatively small on a global scale. There seems to be little to no issues with trade in peace time outside of taxes, which we're never lead to believe are particularly high. It might not be fast, but it's not like they are going to break through to steam engines or anything in the near future.

In the books KL is starving, but only because of the war, as soon as the Tyrell's joined up they solved the food issue almost overnight. 

Of course, years-long winters will cause shortages and strife and tax any infrastructure or trade network, but it just how it is and the Westerosi are as prepared as they can be for it. 

[syrinx]

What do you mean they are not apparent? Apparent compared to what counterfactual?

Imagine a world where transportation and agricultural yields improve. Wouldn't that lead to population growth and urbanization?

Or to take up the issue of seasons that you brought up: imagine a world where seasons are not only less long, but their length less volatile (if not volatile at all, as in our world). Do you not think this would lead to more prosperity and urbanization?

 

[syrinx]

By the way, given the same level of technology, it might be very well be that the Essos has more and larger cities because of institutions. Particularly slavery, which allows for the agricultural surplus to be maximized. This, however, does not mean that technology (and soil quality, and climate and a million other things) does not play a role.

[Jaak]

3 minutes ago, syrinx said:

What do you mean they are not apparent? Apparent compared to what counterfactual?

Imagine a world where transportation and agricultural yields improve. Wouldn't that lead to population growth and urbanization?

Population would grow, yes, but would it be rural population or urban population? That depends on institutions.

Agricultural productivity and population grew in USA between 1810 and 1820, yet urbanization fell (from 7,3% to 7,2%).

[syrinx]

Well, the case of the US is special because it is was a frontier economy with loads of land to be exploited.

In any case, I never denied that institutions mattered, but that both institutions and technology matter. They undeniably interact to determine the degree of urbanization and prosperity.

[Lord Vance II]

9 minutes ago, syrinx said:

What do you mean they are not apparent? Apparent compared to what counterfactual?

I mean the limiting factors (food production, infrastructure, trade capacity) you're referring to don't explain the state of Westerosi cities and issues in KL. They have an expansive state-funded highway system, more farmland than there is in the rest of the known world and no known restrictions on trade on a continental level. And thousands of years of agriculture of course takes a toll on soil, but it's much less with extensive farming (as opposed to intensive) and crop type plays a role too. If there was a real issue with the soil, it would have happened by now. 

[Lord Vance II]

13 minutes ago, syrinx said:

Particularly slavery, which allows for the agricultural surplus to be maximized.

Drive prices down, absolutely. But the slaves still have to eat too. 

[syrinx]

The point is that the current conditions yield this particular outcome. If conditions changed (technology, institutions, whatever) the outcome would change.

Regarding the question of why KL in particular sucks, I go back to my original point: the fact that it did not arise naturally as a major settlement for thousands of years probably means that it is not in a great location.

 

 

[syrinx]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vance II said:

Drive prices down, absolutely. But the slaves still have to eat too. 

But they tend to eat less and/or work more. It's a way to maximize extraction from the land. The surplus can then be redirected to the cities, the merchant classes and the aristocracy.

[Rhae_Valarie]

This is a fascinating topic! I Agree that King's Landing is intentionally portrayed as much filthier than most other cities in Westeros. It actually reminds me of the city version of the original Reek: It smells really bad despite attempts to improve it or cover it up and nobody is quite sure why, except that it might be a sign of internal corruption.

I believe the most compelling reasons for King's Landing's filth are the symbolism and tension it brings to the narrative, especially the city under the Lannisters. However, I agree with other posters who say that in universe it is probably the result of the city not being planned very well and resulting in a very short amount of time.

personally, I think it is also a reflection of the Targaryens as rulers. While there have been some very good ones, there are just as often terrible ones that undo everything the good rulers accomplished. Other cities are run by families that controlled the regions for a long time, some back into the Age of Heroes when even the relatively minor noble families were Kings of their own small territories. When your city is your kingdom, you are going to take care of it. For the Targs however, their city wasn't their whole Kingdom. They was always something in Westeros to worry about, whether it was Dorne or Rebellion or whatever. Personally, I think they would have done better to establish their capital in an already established city and make the family that traditionally served their the stewards so that the capital would be maintained even when their energy was focused on the kingdom. When it came down to KL or Westeros, the Targs were always going to focus on Westeros. 

[StarkofWinterfell]

King's Landing is a small city with a high population. People are packed in there like sardines.

[Graydon Hicks]

2 hours ago, StarkofWinterfell said:

King's Landing is a small city with a high population. People are packed in there like sardines.

actually i think that kings landing might be bigger than white harbor and gull town. it might even be larger than lannisport, but i dont know if its bigger than old town. i think its smaller, but more populated. i read some comments on it in the world book, but i dont have it in front of me to confirm.

[Jaak]

On 22.6.2017 at 8:29 PM, syrinx said:

Regarding the question of why KL in particular sucks, I go back to my original point: the fact that it did not arise naturally as a major settlement for thousands of years probably means that it is not in a great location.

Yet we hear that Riverlands has no major city at all.

In terms of geography, Blackwater has a catchment for drainage and river navigation, but Trident has a bigger one. Maidenpool would fit best, but even Maidenpool is not a major city.

About King´s Landing, we hear that the site had been occupied by castles before, but that they had been destroyed in wars and at the moment of King´s Landing not rebuilt. Makes sense - the area was a borderland between mutually hostile Riverlands and Stormlands.

Having a city not at the best site is a feature of Reach, too. Honeywine is a decent river, but Mander is much bigger a catchment. There might be a major city on lower Mander... like Highgarden. Does not seem to be - Oldtown is a major city, while Highgarden is a castle with little in the way of a town.

[Graydon Hicks]

well, not every keep has a town around it. they are encouraged, because that brings in a peasant base to form a foundation for a lord's income, but some may discourage it, cause a town becomes a liability in sieges, especially if its outside the keeps walls. and we should look at just how old some of these castles are. some might not be old enough to have a town begin to sprout up around the walls.

and the riverlands keeps getting trampled all over during wars. maybe its proven too dangerous or costly to build a city. they have a couple of decent towns i think, farimarket and lords harroway's town. but cities in westeros usually spring up on the coast, where the influx of trade can support the cost of keeping a city up.

[Jaak]

4 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

well, not every keep has a town around it. they are encouraged, because that brings in a peasant base to form a foundation for a lord's income, but some may discourage it, cause a town becomes a liability in sieges, especially if its outside the keeps walls. and we should look at just how old some of these castles are. some might not be old enough to have a town begin to sprout up around the walls.

Few castles are younger than King´s Landing. Whitewalls was, but even Twins and Harrenhal are older.

4 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

and the riverlands keeps getting trampled all over during wars. maybe its proven too dangerous or costly to build a city. they have a couple of decent towns i think, farimarket and lords harroway's town. but cities in westeros usually spring up on the coast, where the influx of trade can support the cost of keeping a city up.

World of Ice and Fire points to lack of charters.

Lower Trident IS a coast, reachable by sea ships. And at Maidenpool, city walls exist... but we see problems with lack of charter. The town was sacked thrice - Lord William Mooton with his garrison retreated to castle and held out, leaving the townfolk to be massacred. And the townfolk could only blame Lord for cowardice - they were not a town militia who could ignore lord´s order to retreat, and successfully defend their homes and walls when their lord would not.

[BalerionTheCat]

GRRM wanted it that way. It was built for the ephemeral glory of the Targaryen. They didn't use Old Town or Lannisport for capital. But built a new one.

It is a place without magical protection against the Others, or caves to shelter people, or geothermal energy. IMO, KL is to be utterly destroyed during the LN. And because of the short-sightedness of its current rulers. KL is the "wrong place to live".