I never met Sir Peter Hall, who died last week, but I feel like I’ve lost an old friend. His books helped guide me through the history of urban planning and its growing obsession with densification.
Cities in Civilization is his most-frequently mentioned book, mainly because its 1,129 pages made it such a formidable reference. Though I have two copies of that book, the book I really love is Cities of Tomorrow, which traced the history of the urban planning profession.
In it, Hall noted that the earliest urban planners were anarchists who sought to free the working class from their high-density hovels. But that changed when Le Corbusier, who Hall called “the Rasputin of the tale” of urban planning, proposed that all cities should consist solely of high-rises. Planners flocked to this idea, and after World War II, nations all over the world rebuilt their slums or bombed-out areas into high rises. Far from freeing the working class from density, planning became all about forcing the working class into density.
Hormonal imbalances may trigger due to hormonal treatment of prostate cancer, levitra super active and a fat-rich diet. viagra for sale mastercard This is absolutely unfounded since this pill is not designed to provide protection against STDs. You can place your order online and enjoy discounted rates: best pharmacy viagra (Tadalafil) : It helps in treating and improving your impotence. Our inability to function normally can be devastating to say the least and many men tend to have a higher risk of a condition associated with the poor blood supply to the penile organ. cialis professional cipla
The problem was that Le Corbusier was an authoritarian who believed he knew how everyone else should live (though he himself never lived in a high rise), and urban planners adopted this authoritarianism. Even when high rises clearly proved to be disasters, as they did in the 1960s and 1970s, the planners remained authoritarians only now favoring mid-rises.
The latest bit of authoritarianism is coming out of the streetcar fad, where cities such as Arlington, VA; Kansas City, MO; and El Paso, TX are intent on building streetcars despite strong opposition from the voters and taxpayers. As a recent article in The Economist observes, “federal subsidies have inspired some silly transit projects.”
“Far from freeing the working class from density, planning became all about forcing the working class into density.”
Not in the UK. The density of tower blocks was the same as normal housing. The chief advantage of tower blocks was that the tower blocks were surrounded by a large expanse of parkland, with the tower in the middle.
Two problems. The open space belonged in practice to criminals. Some of the towers were not very well built, and one fell apart.
The towers have now mainly been converted back to regular housing.
The problem was that Le Corbusier was an authoritarian who believed he knew how everyone else should live (though he himself never lived in a high rise),
Typical planner, meet typical smart growth fanatic (Michael Setty, Dan Staley, 95% of other smart growth advocates)
the planners remained authoritarians only now favoring mid-rises.
Midrises, of course, are a sleight of hand, allowing planners to accomplish their goals while fooling residents into believing that midrises will avoid most of the disadvantages of their taller cousins.
Working-class Parisians scuttle despiritedly between their mid-rise hovels in a dystopian urban slum envisioned by Corbosier:
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/paris-street-scene-chuck-kuhn.jpg
Except those don’t look like mid-rise buildings.
Definition of MID-RISE: being approximately 5 to 10 stories high
And there is only one person smiling. Several are frowning.
FYI, I have yet to meet a planner alive today that doesn’t thoroughly reject the Corbosian approach to city planning. Yes, it was a system that was heavily implemented in recent history and we have seen the ill effects. Just because city planners may advocate for increased densities, WHICH IS INEVITABLE ANYWAYS, doesn’t mean they want to do it like Le Corbosier. Further more, Le Corbosier is not the father of the idea that increase in densities is beneficial (maybe you didn’t read that part in Sir Hall’s book).
Cities of Tomorrow is a required text in every planning program in America. His death is a huge loss to those that call themselves planners. Your diatribe labeling all planners as “authoritarian” is a disservice to his legacy. I’m glad you never met him. Shame on you Mr. O’Toole.
Wasn’t Hall authoritarian, too?
Maybe the word “authoritarian” is less accurate than “statist” as a descriptor of all planners.
And there is only one person smiling. Several are frowning.
Frank’s comment makes my day. No, my week.
Must not take much when you live in the psychosis-inducing city.
psychosis-inducing city
Professor Hall, a student of cities large and small, was an innovative planner who favored expansion of rail service
That might work in England, but it don’t fly in the US. We fought a bloody war to free ourselves from people who tried to force us out of our cars.
It won’t fly in the US because of geography.
The rest of your comment is likely from city-induced psychosis.
Bennett,
Authoritarian was Hall’s word, not mine. “The anarchist fathers had a magnificent vision of the possibilities of urban civilization, which deserves to be remembered and celebrated; Le Corbusier, the Rasputin of this tale, in contrast represents the counter-tradition of authoritarian planning, the evil consequences of which are ever with us.” Page 5 of Cities of Tomorrow.
Sorry Mr. O’Toole, but I disagree. Hall used “authoritarian” to describe Le Corbusier. You take it quite a few steps further.
“…authoritarian planning, the evil consequences of which are ever with us.”
Evil consequences. Ever with us.
Mr. O’Toole is only echoing Hall’s sentiment.