answer qustions

User Generated

anansz

Writing

Description

answer these questions from the 2 reading attachments each question 1 paragraph

the first reading is mumford

the secound redaing is harvery

please see the attached questions and readings

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Volume 27.4 December 2003 939-41 International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Debates and Developments The Right to the City DAVID HARVEY The city, the noted urban sociologist Robert Park once wrote, is: man's most consistent and on the whole, his most successful attempt to remake the world he lives in more after his heart's desire. But, if the city is the world which man created, it is the world in which he is henceforth condemned to live. Thus, indirectly, and without any clear sense of the nature of his task, in making the city man has remade himself. The right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a right to change it after our heart's desire. We need to be sure we can live with our own creations (a problem for every planner, architect and utopian thinker). But the right to remake ourselves by creating a qualitatively different kind of urban sociality is one of the most precious of all human rights. The sheer pace and chaotic forms of urbanization throughout the world have made it hard to reflect on the nature of this task. We have been made and re-made without knowing exactly why, how, wherefore and to what end. How then, can we better exercise this right to the city? The city has never been a harmonious place, free of confusions, conflicts, violence. Only read the history of the Paris Commune of 1871, see Scorsese's fictional depiction of The Gangs of New York in the 1850s, and think how far we have come. But then think of the violence that has divided Belfast, destroyed Beirut and Sarajevo, rocked Bombay, even touched the `city of angels'. Calmness and civility in urban history are the exception not the rule. The only interesting question is whether outcomes are creative or destructive. Usually they are both: the city is the historical site of creative destruction. Yet the city has also proven a remarkably resilient, enduring and innovative social form. But whose rights and whose city? The communards of 1871 thought they were right to take back `their' Paris from the bourgeoisie and imperial lackeys. The monarchists who killed them thought they were right to take back the city in the name of God and private property. Both Catholics and the Protestants thought they were right in Belfast as did Shiv Sena in Bombay when it violently attacked Muslims. Were they not all equally exercising their right to the city? `Between equal rights', Marx once famously wrote, `force decides'. So is this what the right to the city is all about? The right to fight for one's heart's desire and liquidate anyone who gets in the way? It seems a far cry from the universality of the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Or is it? Marx, like Park, held that we change ourselves by changing our world and vice versa. This dialectical relation lies at the root of all human labor. Imagination and desire play their part. What separates the worst of architects from the best of bees, he argued, is that the architect erects a structure in the imagination before materializing it upon the ground. We are, all of us, architects, of a sort. We individually and collectively make the city through our daily actions and our political, intellectual and economic engagements. But, in return, the city makes us. Can I live in Los Angeles without becoming a frustrated motorist? We can dream and wonder about alternative urban worlds. With enough perseverance and power we can even hope to build them. But utopias these days get ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA 940 Debates and Developments a bad rap because when realized they are often hard to live with. What goes wrong? Do we lack the correct moral and ethical compass to guide our thinking? Could we not construct a socially just city? But what is social justice? Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic argues that `each form of government enacts `the laws with a view to its own advantage' so that `the just is the same everywhere, the advantage of the stronger'. Plato rejected this in favor of justice as an ideal. A plethora of ideal formulations now exist. We could be egalitarian, utilitarian in the manner of Bentham (the greatest good of the greatest number), contractual in the manner of Rousseau (with his ideals of inalienable rights) or John Rawls, cosmopolitan in the manner of Kant (a wrong to one is a wrong to all), or just plain Hobbesian, insisting that the state (Leviathan) impose justice upon reckless private interests to prevent social life being violent, brutal and short. Some even argue for local ideals of justice, sensitive to cultural differences. We stare frustratedly in the mirror asking; `which is the most just theory of justice of all?' In practice, we suspect Thrasymachus was right: justice is simply whatever the ruling class wants it to be. Yet we cannot do without utopian plans and ideals of justice. They are indispensable for motivation and for action. Outrage at injustice and alternative ideas have long animated the quest for social change. We cannot cynically dismiss either. But we can and must contextualize them. All ideals about rights hide suppositions about social processes. Conversely, social processes incorporate certain conceptions of rights. To challenge those rights is to challenge the social process and vice versa. Let me illustrate. We live in a society in which the inalienable rights to private property and the profit rate trump any other conception of inalienable rights you can think of. This is so because our society is dominated by the accumulation of capital through market exchange. That social process depends upon a juridical construction of individual rights. Defenders argue that this encourages `bourgeois virtues' of individual responsibility, independence from state interference, equality of opportunity in the market and before the law, rewards for initiative, and an open market place that allows for freedoms of choice. These rights encompass private property in one's own body (to freely sell labor power, to be treated with dignity and respect and to be free from bodily coercions), coupled with freedoms of thought, of expression and of speech. Let us admit it: these derivative rights are appealing. Many of us rely heavily upon them. But we do so much as beggars live off the crumbs from the rich man's table. Let me explain. To live under capitalism is to accept or submit to that bundle of rights necessary for endless capital accumulation. `We seek', says President Bush as he goes to war, `a just peace where repression, resentment and poverty are replaced with the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade'. These last two have, he asserts, `proved their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty'. The United States will deliver this gift of freedom (of the market) to the world whether it likes it or not. But the inalienable rights of private property and the profit rate (earlier also embedded, at US insistence, in the UN declaration) can have negative, even deadly, consequences. Free markets are not necessarily fair. `There is', the old saying goes, `nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals'. This is what the market does. The rich grow richer and the poor get poorer through the egalitarianism of exchange. No wonder those of wealth and power support such rights. Class divisions widen. Cities become more ghettoized as the rich seal themselves off for protection while the poor become ghettoized by default. And if racial, religious and ethnic divisions cross-cut, as they so often do, with struggles to acquire class and income position, then we quickly find cities divided in the bitter ways we know only too well. Market freedoms inevitably produce monopoly power (as in the media or among developers). Thirty years of neoliberalism teaches us that the freer the market the greater the inequalities and the greater the monopoly power. Worse still, markets require scarcity to function. If scarcity does not exist then it must be socially created. This is what private property and the profit rate do. The result is much unnecessary deprivation (unemployment, housing shortages, etc.) in the midst International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003 Debates 941 of plenty. Hence, the homeless on our streets and the beggars in the subways. Famines can even occur in the midst of food surpluses. The liberalization of financial markets has unleashed a storm of speculative powers. A few hedge funds, exercising their inalienable right to make a profit by whatever means rage around the world, speculatively destroying whole economies (such as that of Indonesia and Malaysia). They destroy our cities with their speculations, reanimate them with their donations to the opera and the ballet while, like Kenneth Lay of Enron fame, their CEOs strut the global stage and accumulate massive wealth at the expense of millions. Is it worth the crumbs of derivative rights to live with the likes of Kenneth Lay? If this is where the inalienable rights of private property and the profit rate lead, then I want none of it. This does not produce cities that match my heart's desire, but worlds of inequality, alienation and injustice. I oppose the endless accumulation of capital and the conception of rights embedded therein. A different right to the city must be asserted. Those that now have the rights will not surrender them willingly: `Between equal rights, force decides'. This does not necessarily mean violence (though, sadly, it often comes down to that). But it does mean the mobilization of sufficient power through political organization or in the streets if necessary to change things. But by what strategies do we proceed? No social order, said Saint-Simon, can change without the lineaments of the new already being latently present within the existing state of things. Revolutions are not total breaks but they do turn things upside down. Derivative rights (like the right to be treated with dignity) should become fundamental and fundamental rights (of private property and the profit rate) should become derivative. Was this not the traditional aim of democratic socialism? There are, it turns out, contradictions within the capitalist package of rights. These can be exploited. What would have happened to global capitalism and urban life had the UN declaration's clauses on the derivative rights of labor (to a secure job, reasonable living standards and the right to organize) been rigorously enforced? But new rights can also be defined: like the right to the city which, as I began by saying, is not merely a right of access to what the property speculators and state planners define, but an active right to make the city different, to shape it more in accord with our heart's desire, and to re-make ourselves thereby in a different image. The creation of a new urban commons, a public sphere of active democratic participation, requires that we roll back that huge wave of privatization that has been the mantra of a destructive neoliberalism. We must imagine a more inclusive, even if continuously fractious, city based not only upon a different ordering of rights but upon different political-economic practices. If our urban world has been imagined and made then it can be re-imagined and re-made. The inalienable right to the city is worth fighting for. `City air makes one free' it used to be said. The air is a bit polluted now. But it can always be cleaned up. David Harvey (DHarvey@gc.cuny.edu). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003 city reader-5th-02-c 6/12/10 15:08 Page 91 “What is a City?” Architectural Record (1937) Lewis Mumford Editors’ Introduction Lewis Mumford (1895–1990) has been called the United States’ last great public intellectual – that is, a scholar not based in academia who writes for an educated popular audience. Beginning with the publication of his first book The Story of Utopias in 1922 and continuing throughout a career that saw the publication of some twentyfive influential volumes, Mumford made signal contributions to social philosophy, American literary and cultural history, the history of technology and, preeminently, the history of cities and urban planning practice. Born in Brooklyn and coming of age at a time when the modern city was reaching a new peak in the history of urban civilization, Mumford saw the urban experience as an essential component in the development of human culture and the human personality. He consistently argued that the physical design of cities and their economic functions were secondary to their relationship to the natural environment and to the spiritual values of human community. Mumford applied these principles to his architectural criticism for The New Yorker magazine and his work with the Regional Planning Association of America in the 1920s and 1930s, his campaign against plans to build a highway through Washington Square in New York’s Greenwich Village in the 1950s, and his lifelong championing of the environmental theories of Patrick Geddes and the Garden City ideals of Ebenezer Howard. In “What is a City?” – the text of a 1937 talk to an audience of urban planners – Mumford lays out his fundamental propositions about city planning and the human potential, both individual and social, of urban life. The city, he writes, is “a theater of social action,” and everything else – art, politics, education, commerce – serve only to make the “social drama . . . more richly significant, as a stage-set, well-designed, intensifies and underlines the gestures of the actors and the action of the play.” The city as a form of social drama expressed as much in daily life as in revolutionary moments – it was a theme and an image to which Mumford would return over and over again. In The Culture of Cities of 1938, he rhapsodized about the artist Albrecht Dürer witnessing a religious procession in Antwerp in 1519 that was a dramatic performance “where the spectators were also communicants.” And in “The Urban Drama” from The City in History of 1961, he reflected on the ways that the social life of the ancient city established a kind of dramatic dialogue “in which common life itself takes on the features of a drama, heightened by every device of costume and scenery, for the setting itself magnifies the voice and increases the apparent stature of the actors.” Mumford was quick to point out that the earliest urban dialogue was really a one-way “monologue of power” from the king to his cowering subjects. Such an absence of true dialogue, he wrote, was “bound to have a fatal last act.” But real dialogue developed slowly but irresistibly in the forum, the agora, or the neighborhood. In the end, said Mumford, great moments of urban civilization often found expression in theatrical and literary dialogues – in everything from Plato’s Republic to the plays of Shakespeare – that sum up the city’s “total experience of life.” It is an arresting insight and leads us to wonder what movies, television shows, popular websites and video games say about the quality of our present-day urban civilization. Mumford’s influence on the theory and practice of modern urban planning can hardly be overstated. His “urban drama” idea clearly resonates with an entire line of urban cultural analysts. Jane Jacobs, for example, talks about “street ballet” (p. 105). William Whyte (p. 510) says that a good urban plaza should function like a stage. Allan city reader-5th-02-c 92 6/12/10 15:08 Page 92 LEWIS MUMFORD Jacobs and Donald Appleyard (p. 518) urge planners to fulfill human needs for “fantasy and exoticism.” The city, they write, “has always been a place of excitement; it is a theater, a stage upon which citizens can display themselves and be seen by others.” And Mumford would no doubt have approved of economist Richard Florida (p. 143) and his argument for the importance to urban culture of a “creative class.” As a historian, Mumford’s emphasis on community values and the city’s role in enlarging the potential of the human personality connects him with a long line of urban theorists that includes Louis Wirth (p. 96) and many others. The City in History (1961) is undoubtedly Mumford’s masterpiece, but an earlier version of the same material, The Culture of Cities (1938), is still of interest. The Urban Prospect (1968) is an outstanding collection of his essays on urban planning and culture, and The Myth of the Machine (1967) and The Pentagon of Power (1970) are excellent analyses of the influence of technology on human culture. The magisterial The Transformations of Man (1956) invites comparison with V. Gordon Childe’s theory of the urban revolution (p. 31). And Mumford’s ideas about urban regionalism and his advocacy of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City (p. 328) are foundational to the theories of Peter Calthorpe (p. 360) and other New Urbanists. A sampling of Mumford’s writings is included in Donald L. Miller (ed.), The Lewis Mumford Reader (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1995). Mumford’s illuminating correspondence with Patrick Geddes is contained in Frank G. Novak, Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The Correspondence (London: Routledge, 1995). His correspondence with Frank Lloyd Wright is contained in Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer et al., Frank Lloyd Wright and Lewis Mumford: Thirty Years of Correspondence (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2001), and his writings for The New Yorker are contained in Robert Wojtowicz (ed.), Sidewalk Critic: Lewis Mumford’s Writings on New York (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998). Mumford is now being rediscovered by a new generation of environmental planners. Examples of books applying his perspective to current ecological issues are Mark Luccarelli Lewis, Mumford and the Ecological Region: The Politics of Planning (New York: Guilford, 1997) and Robert Wojtowicz, Lewis Mumford and American Modernism: Eutopian Theories for Architecture and Urban Planning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Biographies of Lewis Mumford are Donald L. Miller, Lewis Mumford: A Life (New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989), Thomas P. Hughes and Agatha C. Hughes (eds), Lewis Mumford: Public Intellectual (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), and Frank G. Novak, Lewis Mumford (New York: Twayne, 1998). An excellent bibliography of Mumford’s writings is Elmer S. Newman, Lewis Mumford: A Bibliography, 1914–1970 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971). Most of our housing and city planning has been handicapped because those who have undertaken the work have had no clear notion of the social functions of the city. They sought to derive these functions from a cursory survey of the activities and interests of the contemporary urban scene. And they did not, apparently, suspect that there might be gross deficiencies, misdirected efforts, mistaken expenditures here that would not be set straight by merely building sanitary tenements or straightening out and widening irregular streets. The city as a purely physical fact has been subject to numerous investigations. But what is the city as a social institution? The earlier answers to these questions, in Aristotle, Plato, and the Utopian writers from Sir Thomas More to Robert Owen, have been on the whole more satisfactory than those of the more systematic sociologists: most contemporary treatises on “urban sociology” in America throw no important light upon the problem. One of the soundest definitions of the city was that framed by John Stow, an honest observer of Elizabethan London, who said: Men are congregated into cities and commonwealths for honesty and utility’s sake, these shortly be the commodities that do come by cities, commonalties and corporations. First, men by this nearness of conversation are withdrawn from barbarous fixity and force, to certain mildness of manners, and to humanity and justice . . . Good behavior is yet called urbanitas because it is rather found in cities than elsewhere. In sum, by often hearing, men be better persuaded in religion, and for that they live in the eyes of others, they be by example the more easily trained to justice, and by shamefastness restrained from injury. city reader-5th-02-c 6/12/10 15:08 Page 93 “WHAT IS A CITY?” And whereas commonwealths and kingdoms cannot have, next after God, any surer foundation than the love and good will of one man towards another, that also is closely bred and maintained in cities, where men by mutual society and companying together, do grow to alliances, commonalties, and corporations. It is with no hope of adding much to the essential insight of this description of the urban process that I would sum up the sociological concept of the city in the following terms: The city is a related collection of primary groups and purposive associations: the first, like family and neighborhood, are common to all communities, while the second are especially characteristic of city life. These varied groups support themselves through economic organizations that are likewise of a more or less corporate, or at least publicly regulated, character; and they are all housed in permanent structures, within a relatively limited area. The essential physical means of a city’s existence are the fixed site, the durable shelter, the permanent facilities for assembly, interchange, and storage; the essential social means are the social division of labor, which serves not merely the economic life but the cultural processes. The city in its complete sense, then, is a geographic plexus, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theater of social action, and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity. The city fosters art and is art; the city creates the theater and is the theater. It is in the city, the city as theater, that man’s more purposive activities are focused, and work out, through conflicting and cooperating personalities, events, groups, into more significant culminations. Without the social drama that comes into existence through the focusing and intensification of group activity there is not a single function performed in the city that could not be performed – and has not in fact been performed – in the open country. The physical organization of the city may deflate this drama or make it frustrate; or it may, through the deliberate efforts of art, politics, and education, make the drama more richly significant, as a stage-set, well-designed, intensifies and underlines the gestures of the actors and the action of the play. It is not for nothing that men have dwelt so often on the beauty or the ugliness of cities: these attributes qualify men’s social activities. And if there is a deep reluctance on the part of the true city dweller to leave his cramped quarters for the physically more benign environment of a suburb – even a model garden suburb! – his instincts are usually justified: in its various and many-sided life, in its very opportunities for social disharmony and conflict, the city creates drama; the suburb lacks it. One may describe the city, in its social aspect, as a special framework directed toward the creation of differentiated opportunities for a common life and a significant collective drama. As indirect forms of association, with the aid of signs and symbols and specialized organizations, supplement direct face-toface intercourse, the personalities of the citizens themselves become many-faceted: they reflect their specialized interests, their more intensively trained aptitudes, their finer discriminations and selections: the personality no longer presents a more or less unbroken traditional face to reality as a whole. Here lies the possibility of personal disintegration; and here lies the need for reintegration through wider participation in a concrete and visible collective whole. What men cannot imagine as a vague formless society, they can live through and experience as citizens in a city. Their unified plans and buildings become a symbol of their social relatedness; and when the physical environment itself becomes disordered and incoherent, the social functions that it harbors become more difficult to express. One further conclusion follows from this concept of the city: social facts are primary, and the physical organization of a city, its industries and its markets, its lines of communication and traffic, must be subservient to its social needs. Whereas in the development of the city during the last century we expanded the physical plant recklessly and treated the essential social nucleus, the organs of government and education and social service, as mere afterthought, today we must treat the social nucleus as the essential element in every valid city plan: the spotting and inter-relationship of schools, libraries, theaters, community centers is the first task in defining the urban neighborhood and laying down the outlines of an integrated city. In giving this sociological answer to the question: What is a City? one has likewise provided the clue to a number of important other questions. Above all, one has the criterion for a clear decision as to what is the desirable size of a city – or may a city perhaps continue to grow until a single continuous urban area might cover half the American continent, with the rest of the world tributary to this mass? From the standpoint of the purely physical organization of urban utilities 93 T W O city reader-5th-02-c 94 6/12/10 15:08 Page 94 LEWIS MUMFORD – which is almost the only matter upon which metropolitan planners in the past have concentrated – this latter process might indeed go on indefinitely. But if the city is a theater of social activity, and if its needs are defined by the opportunities it offers to differentiated social groups, acting through a specific nucleus of civic institutes and associations, definite limitations on size follow from this fact. In one of Le Corbusier’s early schemes for an ideal city, he chose three million as the number to be accommodated: the number was roughly the size of the urban aggregate of Paris, but that hardly explains why it should have been taken as a norm for a more rational type of city development. If the size of an urban unit, however, is a function of its productive organization and its opportunities for active social intercourse and culture, certain definite facts emerge as to adequate ratio of population to the process to be served. Thus, at the present level of culture in America, a million people are needed to support a university. Many factors may enter which will change the size of both the university and the population base; nevertheless one can say provisionally that if a million people are needed to provide a sufficient number of students for a university, then two million people should have two universities. One can also say that, other things being equal, five million people will not provide a more effective university than one million people would. The alternative to recognizing these ratios is to keep on overcrowding and overbuilding a few existing institutions, thereby limiting, rather than expanding, their genuine educational facilities. What is important is not an absolute figure as to population or area: although in certain aspects of life, such as the size of city that is capable of reproducing itself through natural fertility, one can already lay down such figures. What is more important is to express size always as a function of the social relationships to be served . . . There is an optimum numerical size, beyond which each further increment of inhabitants creates difficulties out of all proportion to the benefits. There is also an optimum area of expansion, beyond which further urban growth tends to paralyze rather than to further important social relationships. Rapid means of transportation have given a regional area with a radius of from forty to a hundred miles, the unity that London and Hampstead had before the coming of the underground railroad. But the activities of small children are still bounded by a walking distance of about a quarter of a mile; and for men to congregate freely and frequently in neighborhoods the maximum distance means nothing, although it may properly define the area served for a selective minority by a university, a central reference library, or a completely equipped hospital. The area of potential urban settlement has been vastly increased by the motor car and the airplane; but the necessity for solid contiguous growth, for the purposes of intercourse, has in turn been lessened by the telephone and the radio. In the Middle Ages a distance of less than a half a mile from the city’s center usually defined its utmost limits. The blockby-block accretion of the big city, along its corridor avenues, is in all important respects a denial of the vastly improved type of urban grouping that our fresh inventions have brought in. For all occasional types of intercourse, the region is the unit of social life but the region cannot function effectively, as a well-knit unit, if the entire area is densely filled with people – since their very presence will clog its arteries of traffic and congest its social facilities. Limitations on size, density, and area are absolutely necessary to effective social intercourse; and they are therefore the most important instruments of rational economic and civic planning. The unwillingness in the past to establish such limits has been due mainly to two facts: the assumption that all upward changes in magnitude were signs of progress and automatically “good for business,” and the belief that such limitations were essentially arbitrary, in that they proposed to “decrease economic opportunity” – that is, opportunity for profiting by congestion – and to halt the inevitable course of change. Both these objections are superstitious. Limitations on height are now common in American cities; drastic limitations on density are the rule in all municipal housing estates in England: that which could not be done has been done. Such limitations do not obviously limit the population itself: they merely give the planner and administrator the opportunity to multiply the number of centers in which the population is housed, instead of permitting a few existing centers to aggrandize themselves on a monopolistic pattern. These limitations are necessary to break up the functionless, hypertrophied urban masses of the past. Under this mode of planning, the planner proposes to replace the “mononucleated city,” as Professor Warren Thompson has called it, with a new type of “polynucleated city,” in which a cluster of communities, adequately spaced and bounded, shall do duty for the badly organized mass city. Twenty such cities, in a city reader-5th-02-c 6/12/10 15:08 Page 95 “WHAT IS A CITY?” region whose environment and whose resources were adequately planned, would have all the benefits of a metropolis that held a million people, without its ponderous disabilities: its capital frozen into unprofitable utilities, and its land values congealed at levels that stand in the way of effective adaptation to new needs. Mark the change that is in process today. The emerging sources of power, transport, and communication do not follow the old highway network at all. Giant power strides over the hills, ignoring the limitations of wheeled vehicles; the airplane, even more liberated, flies over swamps and mountains, and terminates its journey, not on an avenue, but in a field. Even the highway for fast motor transportation abandons the pattern of the horse-and-buggy era. The new highways, like those of New Jersey and Westchester, to mention only examples drawn locally, are based more or less on a system definitively formulated by Benton MacKaye in his various papers on the Townless Highway. The most complete plans form an independent highway network, isolated both from the adjacent countryside and the towns that they bypass: as free from communal encroachments as the railroad system. In such a network no single center will, like the metropolis of old, become the focal point of all regional advantages: on the contrary, the “whole region” becomes open for settlement. Even without intelligent public control, the likelihood is that within the next generation this dissociation and decentralization of urban facilities will go even farther. The Townless Highway begets the Highwayless Town in which the needs of close and continuous human association on all levels will be uppermost. This is just the opposite of the earlier mechanocentric picture of Roadtown, as pictured by Edgar Chambless and the Spanish projectors of the Linear City. For the highwayless town is based upon the notion of effective zoning of functions through initial public design, rather than by blind legal ordinances. It is a town in which the various functional parts of the structure are isolated topographically as urban islands, appropriately designed for their specific use with no attempt to provide a uniform plan of the same general pattern for the industrial, the commercial, the domestic, and the civic parts. The first systematic sketch of this type of town was made by Messrs. Wright and Stein in their design for Radburn in 1929; a new type of plan that was repeated on a limited scale – and apparently in complete independence – by planners in Köln and Hamburg at about the same time. Because of restrictions on design that favored a conventional type of suburban house and stale architectural forms, the implications of this new type of planning were not carried very far in Radburn. But in outline the main relationships are clear: the differentiation of foot traffic from wheeled traffic in independent systems, the insulation of residence quarters from through roads; the discontinuous street pattern; the polarization of social life in specially spotted civic nuclei, beginning in the neighborhood with the school and the playground and the swimming pool. This type of planning was carried to a logical conclusion in perhaps the most functional and most socially intelligent of all Le Corbusier’s many urban plans: that for Nemours in North Africa, in 1934. Through these convergent efforts, the principles of the polynucleated city have been well established. Such plans must result in a fuller opportunity for the primary group, with all its habits of frequent direct meeting and face-to-face intercourse: they must also result in a more complicated pattern and a more comprehensive life for the region, for this geographic area can only now, for the first time, be treated as an instantaneous whole for all the functions of social existence. Instead of trusting to the mere massing of population to produce the necessary social concentration and social drama, we must now seek these results through deliberate local nucleation and a finer regional articulation. The words are jargon; but the importance of their meaning should not be missed. To embody these new possibilities in city life, which come to us not merely through better technical organization but through acuter sociological understanding, and to dramatize the activities themselves in appropriate individual and urban structures, forms the task of the coming generation. 95 T W O be whawh 11 www dram como have the right to make changes to evening with that allowed they will wat ople atte group than the Wat does stored ost"
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Related Tags