PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY

URDANETA CITY CAMPUS, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT

RESEARCH WORK NO. RSW – MT – 02

DATE ISSUED: MARCH 07, 2023

TITLE: ―urban and regional planning

theories and issues:
IMPLICATIONS TO ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE‖

STUDENT NAME: DATE DUE: FINAL

COURSE AND TITLE:
MARCH 14 RATING
APL 423 - PLANNING 3 GUMALLAOI, JUDELLE V. :
2023
INSTRUCTOR: COURSE/YEAR/SECTION: DATE
SUBMITTED:
AR. ALVEN T. BACTAD, uap BS-ARCHITECTURE 4-a MARCH 11
FACULTY INSTRUCTOR 2023
 URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING THEORIES

Planning – and especially urban and regional planning – is originally a discipline which in spite
of the importance of its epistemological and theoretical basis, practice and action has always kept its
dominancy. Theory has continuously been affected by the theoretical achievements in related academic
disciplines. And, similar to the formation and evolution of planning practice – with members from
different professional backgrounds – planning theory, with its eclectical combination of concepts from
varying disciplines, has been developed. There is no unitary and universally acknowledged definition
of planning theory and there is no consensus about its inclusive 2 elements. The existing portrait of
planning theory can be considered to be a reflection of successive and dominant images.

Planning action is done through differing actors that planning – directly or indirectly – is
included in their agenda. Due to a set of factors which – from one hand – are related to the general
definition of planning in each society and also to the multiplicity of institutions in which planning – as
a public activity – is done, and on the other side to the instability that the theoretical and experimental
developments that planning has faced during the second part of the 20th century, there is not adequate
consensus about such areas as the definition, characters, circumstances and categorisation of planning
theory amongst its theoreticians and specialists. This means that not only there is no explicit
articulation of epistemological and theoretical basis of planning and no such concurrence.
As a result of existing ambiguities in planning research, dealing with planning theories and
approaches – not only in their epistemological position, but also compliant with the "planning action" –
and the necessities of a transparent and all-encompassing categorisation of planning theories has
always been indispensable. Research about the planning theory to guide planning action, thus has to
consider the differences in the theory and action of planning between different geographical levels,
between the less and the more developed societies and also between the capitalist and non-capitalist
countries. The differing aspects of civil society and state and their impact upon the theory and action of
planning in different socio-economic systems, must also be considered. Within the domain of planning,
whether concerned with different subject areas or different geographical levels, ‗knowledge‘ and
‗action‘ rest on a dialectical interaction. Accordingly any attempt at investigating "planning theory"
must not only be based on the search for the role of "planning action" as against ‗knowledge‘, but
should also answer the questions concerning the foundations of theories, approaches, actions and
activities of planning.
Presenting a general definition of planning is an intricate task. Nonetheless, the aim of this book
is to categorise and delineate the theories and approaches as they exist in the realm of planning as a
broad concept and urban planning or what is also termed urban spatial planning as a specific concept:
considering the fact that urban and regional planning is a specific form of planning within its broad
meaning. Consequently in this book the intention has not been to offer new planning theories and
approaches. Instead, this book intends to review the theories and approaches of planning and urban
planning as have been put forward by the planning theorist during time and have been applied by
planning practitioners, stakeholders and authorities in different societies.
1. GARDEN CITY CONCEPT (1898-1902); BY EBENEZER HOWARD
The three magnet concept was an utopian vision by Ebenezer
Howard, a well-known urban planner of the 19th century. The illustration
below shows the three kinds, two which were existing with some positives
and some negatives, and the third one Howard proposed by combining the
two; i.e. town-country. The amalgamation of these two magnets helped in
compensating the disadvantages of both; the town and countryside.
Introducing the greenbelts in cities brought the working class people near to
the farm side and empowered the lifestyles of both. The concept evolved in
many stages from the ―three magnet theory‘‘ to ―Garden cities of to-
morrow‖.
With the growing grid of the concept Howard gave an assumed data, and pattern of circular
rings linked with each other via different road networks. The first city planned on this theory
was Letchworth garden city, then came the Welwayn garden city in the UK, and slowly people started
following the theory and built many more of them.

This theory, developed by Ebenezer Howard in the late 19th

century, advocates for the creation of small, self-contained
communities surrounded by greenbelts. The idea is to combine the
best of rural and urban living, with a focus on sustainability, social
equity, and a high quality of life.
 Ebenezer Howard‘s book, originally published in London in
1898 as To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform and then in
1902 as Garden Cities of To-morrow, proposed a peaceful but
inherently radical experiment in city, town, and regional planning
aimed at creating more healthy, self-sufficient, and just places to live
and work that balanced the open space of the countryside with the
cultural vibrancy of the city. This book, which would prove to be
foundational to much new economic thinking, can be found in the
Schumacher library‘s general collection.

Although he is often blamed by urban planners as the progenitor of 20th Century suburbs,
Ebenezer Howard‘s Garden City concept was actually premised on a revolutionary reimagining of land
ownership. Horrified by the poverty and ill-health of 19th Century industrial England and inspired by
the ideas of Henry George, Howard envisioned a municipality where all the land would be owned by
the residents through a trust--a structure very much like what eventually became known as the
community land trust--allowing the residents to produce to meet their own needs, free from the high
rents caused by speculative land ownership.
According to Howard's vision, the Garden City would be situated in the center of a green belt.
Residential, commercial, and cultural activities would be in the center, with manufacturing and
transportation hubs around the outer edge. The city itself would only take up 1,000 of the total 6,000-
acre estate. The surrounding green land would be reserved for agriculture, leisure, and recovery.
To avoid the destruction of this productive agricultural zone, Howard argues that the green belt
must be inviolable, and that communities must not grow by expansion, but rather by replication. In
other words, once a Garden City reaches the limit of its resources, a whole new Garden City must be
built, complete with the envelope of agricultural land, manufacturing ring, and cultural, residential, and
commercial center.
Readers have often become preoccupied with the physical design of Howard‘s Garden Cities,
but the more fruitful lessons can be found in the economic design he describes. Enabled by community
ownership of land, he anticipates a strong local economy defined by a close collaboration between
producers and consumers. Farmers will be able to grow delicate fruits and vegetables thanks to the
proximate and predictable market right next door. Shopkeepers will be incentivized through the terms
of their leases to charge reasonable prices, be honest about the quality of goods offered, and treat their
employees well. The elected municipal government would deploy the revenue generated by (universal)
land rents for public works such as infrastructure, education, health, and recreation.
The ideas set forth in Garden Cities of To-morrow reverberate through the economic movement
that E. F. Schumacher helped to start when he wrote Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People
Mattered, in 1973. Beneath all of Howard‘s facts and figures there is an underlying argument that scale
matters, governance and ownership matter, and production should be as local as possible. Garden Cities
couldn‘t be healthy, beautiful, responsive and efficient if they grew too big, if the land was not owned
as a whole by the residents, if the people did not govern themselves, and if they could not be
productively employed, with producers and consumers cooperating to make the goods and provide the
services needed.
 The Garden city movement was founded by Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928). His ideas were
expressed in the book Garden Cities of To-morrow (1898). His influences included Benjamin Walter
Richardson, who had published a pamphlet in 1876 calling for low population density, good housing,
wide roads, an underground railway and for open space; Thomas Spence who had supported common
ownership of land and the sharing of the rents it would produce; Edward Gibbon Wakefield who had
pioneered the idea of colonizing planned communities to house the poor in Adelaide (including starting
new cities separated by green belts at a certain point); James Silk Buckingham who had designed a
model town with a central place, radial avenues and industry in the periphery; as well as Alfred
Marshall, Peter Kropotkin and the back-to-the-land movement, which had all called for the moving of
masses to the countryside.
Howards' vision was to combine the best of both the countryside and the city in a new
environment called Town-Country. To make this happen, a group of individuals would establish a
limited-dividend company to buy cheap agricultural land, which would then be developed with
investment from manufacturers and housing for the workers. No more than 32,000 people would be
housed in a settlement, spread over 1,000 acres. Around it would be a permanent green belt of 5,000
acres, with farms and institutions (such as mental institutions) which would benefit from the location.
After reaching the limit, a new settlement would be started, connected by an inter-city rail, with the
polycentric settlements together forming the "Social City". The lands of the settlements would be
jointly owned by the inhabitants, who would use rents received from it to pay off the mortgage
necessary to buy the land and then invest the rest in the community through social security. Actual
garden cities were built by Howard in Letchworth, Brentham Garden Suburb, and Welwyn Garden
City. The movement would also inspire the later New tow ns movement.

A diagram of Howard's planned Social City.

2. THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT BY CLARENCE ARTHUR PERRY
The neighborhood unit, or neighborhood unit concept (NUC), is a
residential design model, credited to Clarence A. Perry, for a
neighborhood population of about 5,000–9,000 residents, with school,
places of worship, and recreational areas at its center. Commercial uses
were relegated to the perimeter of the neighborhood along arterial streets
which defined the boundaries of the neighborhood. Pedestrians were able
to move freely along interior curvilinear streets without interference from
high-speed vehicular traffic. The model, utilizing curvilinear streets,
accentuated a break with the traditional neighborhood grid-pattern street
system of the early 1900s. Through his model, Perry hoped to encourage
social interaction and cohesion among residents living in the defined
neighborhood.
Soon, the concept of neighborhood unit emerged as a planning concept in response to the
degenerate environmental and social conditions that fostered as a result of industrial revolution in the
early 1900s. In the United States, neighborhood units were originally conceived as small areas within
which all residents had access to basic services such as schools, parks, stores, etc., and where they
could live without having to travel long distances. As a result, they are often defined by their proximity
to public transportation or other amenities. Charles Arthur Perry, an architect and planner from New
York, was one of the first authors that defined the concept of ‗neighborhood unit‘.
Conception of neighborhood unit

The origin of the neighborhood unit as a concept can be traced back to the 19th century when
many scholars were concerned about the quality of life in the city. However, the publication of
Clarence A. Perry‘s memorandum entitled ‗The Neighborhood Unit‘ in 1929 led to its promotion as a
comprehensive planning tool. It was to be utilized as a self-containing residential area that promoted a
community-centric lifestyle, which was away from all the hustle and bustle of the city especially during
the industrializing New York City in the early 1900s.

Perry defined a neighborhood as a collection of dwelling units located close together, having a
common interest in the character of the surrounding areas. He also stated that a neighborhood is a
small-scale community where people know each other, share many of their activities, and provided a
sense of belonging.

Later in his book titled ‗Neighborhood Planning‘, Perry (1953) emphasized the importance of
the physical environment in creating a sense of community. He believed that the quality of life depends
on the type of housing, streets, sidewalks, trees, lighting, etc. He argued that if these elements are not
properly designed, then the quality of life would be poor. Therefore, he suggested that the planning of
neighborhoods should be based on the needs of the people who live there, and thereby encourage social
interaction and cohesion among residents living in the defined neighborhood.
3. CITIES IN EVOLUTION-by GEDDES & ABERCROMBIE
Cities in Evolution is, in a sense, the written version of the
Cities and Town Planning Exhibition which Geddes created to
enlighten the public about the burgeoning planning profession. The
Exhibition toured Britain in the three years prior to the outbreak of
World War I, and won the grand prize at the 1913 International
Congress of Cities Exposition in Ghent. It contained maps, charts,
diagrams, and pictures portraying the history of cities in Western
civilization. Insights and perspectives were offered on the
sociological, economic, geological, geographical, and political
aspects of towns and cities at home and abroad, existing and extinct.
The written program accompanying the exhibit at its 1911 opening in
London eventually was discarded, so incessant were the changes in
arrangement and content. Professor Geddes tied together the varying
displays with a running monologue, in which he raised questions
about general urban trends. Only he or his elder son, Alasdair, could provide the wide-ranging
discourse to lend maximum impact to the exhibit's unique conception.
Geddes preferred this three-dimensional, "organic" means of I communication to the more
conventional written mode. He adr mitted that he deliberat ely left his exhibits unfinished and
confusing in order to convey the current status of the city itself. Fortunately for succeeding generations,
public interest in the study of cities was sufficiently aroused to warrant his effort in committing his
ideas to paper. The book was largely areworking of his treatises on urban subjects, and an outlet for
reconstruction principles he deemed it timely to advance in the months preceding the outbreak of the
Great War.
 Sir patrick geddes believed in the concept of region and gave power to human life more than
anything, His values lied on emphasizing human life and energy than to beautify them. Taking
inspiration from a sociologist Frédéric Le Play‘s triad quoting to ʻLieu, Travail, Familleʼ geddes
translated them ―Work, Place, Folkʼ‘ and gave a theory of urban planning. Giving importance to local
surveys and human centric designs, depending on an inhabitant‘s workstyle, their culture, heritage,
beliefs, the region‘s topography, climatic changes, networks and everything, the geddian trio concept
came into existence.
One hundred years ago, the first coordinated reactions to the urban chaos of the industrial
revolution were being established though a system of centralised planning, while the rudiments of a
theory underpinning this collective action were also being fashioned, through the writings and rhetoric
of Patrick Geddes. Drawing on Darwin's theory of natural selection, he laid the foundations for a
response to urban growth that drew loosely on ideas of evolution, but which ultimately became
established through the imposition of a top-down 'organic' order in city and regional plans associated
with the work of Patrick Abercrombie, one of Geddes' best-known followers. This approach was rooted
in 'physicalism', a perspective that assumed social problems might be solved by manipulating the
physical built environment. This ideology began to fragment from the mid-twentieth century on as
questions over its effectiveness in generating more liveable and equitable urban environments grew.
Now, however, there are signs that with the contemporary problems of climate change, energy and
sustainability, this viewpoint is being reasserted. We argue that the seeds of this perspective were first
developed 100 years or more ago, primarily by Patrick Geddes, but that his unique style diverted the
field from grasping the real message of an evolutionary physicalism, which is only now becoming
apparent.
4. CULTURE OF CITIES by LEWIS MUMFORD
In The Culture of Cities Mumford examines the
development of cities from medieval times through
industrialization to the early 20th century to illustrate the
patterns and forces that created the modern ―megalopolis‖ and
the shortcomings of this form. He argues that cities have largely
been developed according to military and industrial logic that
centralizes power and control of resources and seeks profit to
the detriment of environmental health and quality of life.
Prioritizing social relationships and environmental
sustainability necessitates a rebuilding of cities according to new
logic. This new logic of urban development focuses on the
social and environment limits that cities must work within.
This leads Mumford to propose cities that exist, like organisms, in balance with their larger,
regional environment, a precursor to the concept of the ―bioregion‖ that would later be explored by
authors such as Kirkpatrick Sale. Mumford asserts that the role of the countryside, agriculture, soils,
and rivers must be considered in the development of cities.
The Culture of Cities is arguably Lewis Mumford's greatest work. Its publication in 1938
marked a turning point in his extraordinary six-decade writing career, thrusting him into the
international spotlight and onto the cover of Time. So sweeping and insightful was Mumford's analysis
that thereafter he was acknowledged as an authority on urbanism in its multitudinous aspects:
historical, formal, social, economic, and political. He even parlayed his expertise into a brief stint as a
planning consultant for the city of Honolulu. Mumford later revised and greatly expanded the Culture
of Cities as the better-known City in History (1961), a winner of the National Book Award for non-
fiction in 1962. The latter book, however, lacks the freshness and optimism of the former, which still
has the power to move the present-day reader to dream of a better urban environment, integrated with
surrounding region and attuned to the essential rhythms of daily life.
As a journalist and writer, Mumford rose steadily to a position of prominence during the 1920s
and 1930s. His articles and criticism appeared in a variety of architectural and general-interest
periodicals, and he proved himself an authority on a staggering array of subjects. Mumford's first book,
the Story of Utopias (1922), introduced an idea that was to become the overarching theme of his career:
the goal of "eutopia", the good--as opposed to the perfect--place, a goal that was indeed possible with
sound, organic planning. Other pithy books followed on American culture, in which he surveyed and
reevaluated key historical figures in American literature, art, and architecture whose example might
still guide creative activity in the twentieth century.
By the early 1930s, having blazed a major path in a well-defined terrain, Mumford was ready to
embark in a new direction: the writing of a multi-volume work on Western civilization. The first
volume of what became known as the Renewal of Life series, Technics and Civilization (1934),
examined the historical basis for technology's dominance of twentieth-century life, a trend that
Mumford found to be both alarming and in need of more precise human control. The two subsequent
volumes in the series, the Condition of Man (1944) and the Conduct of Life (1951), surveyed human
beliefs and values and prescribed organic remedies for the rebuilding of society in light of his previous
forays into the fields of technology and urbanism.
Thus, the Culture of Cities, while independently a book of great importance in the historical
discourse on cities, must be viewed as part of a larger synthetic series that sought to address the ills of
modern life in total by uncovering their root causes in the past and identifying potential courses for
their treatment in the present. The framework for the entire series was greatly indebted to Patrick
Geddes, the Scottish polymath who acted as a mentor to the young Mumford, and who advocated a
method of direct observation known as regional survey. Mumford, who had trod the sidewalks of most
of America's major east-coast cities as well as many in the Midwest, spent part of 1932 in Europe,
observing a wide variety of medieval towns, baroque capitals, and industrial quarters in preparation for
his ambitious series. The new housing, much of it inspired by the British Garden City movement,
pleased him enormously, just as he had expected, but he was especially surprised and delighted by the
human scale of medieval towns such as Lbeck, in which town and country remained in healthy
proximity. Although Mumford encountered an emergent Nazism on this journey, he had yet to realize
its full implications on the urban and social order.
What distinguishes the Culture of Cities from the other works in the series is Mumford's ability
to weave facts and figures, prose and illustrations into an elaborate and evocative carpet that transports
the reader to the time and place under examination. His observations are both broadly cast and
narrowly focused. The impact of ever-more expensive military fortifications to urban life is discussed
as is the replacement of curtains by doors within the domestic household. Spatial relationships,
moreover, are his special purview.
Mumford borrows a Geddesian framework and even some Geddesian vocabulary to support his
survey, which begins in the middle ages and concludes just before the outbreak of World War II. In the
first chapter, Mumford reveals himself to be a champion of the medieval town for its compact size,
plan, and population and its organic irregularity. In one particularly stirring passage, he describes the
changing appearance of the townscape as one processes through it on foot: "Here is no static
architecture. The masses suddenly expand and vanish, as one approaches them or draws away: a dozen
paces may alter the relation of the foreground and background, or the lower and upper range of the line
of vision. The silhouettes of the buildings, with their steep gables, their sharp roof lines, their pinnacles,
their towers, ripple and flow, break and solidify, rise and fall, with no less vitality than the structures
themselves. As in a fine piece of sculpture, the silhouettes are often inexhaustible in their variety: the
outlines vary no less constantly than the relations of the planes (p. 62)."
He was less generous when discussing the Renaissance and Baroque city in the second chapter,
no doubt because many of its most obvious forms-- the symmetrical plan, the straight avenue, and the
neoclassical architecture--had yet to wither completely even in the 1930s. In fact, the militaristic
impulse behind such forms was at that very moment giving them new meaning in capitals as far afield
as Berlin, Rome, and Washington (p. 273). In chapters three and four, respectively, Mumford examined
the squalor of the nineteenth-century factory town, with its "minimum of life" (p. 179), and the
burgeoning, early twentieth-century Megalopolis, in whose sheer scale lay the seeds of its own collapse
into "Nekropolis" (pp. 291-292).
Yet, from his vantage point in the mid-to-late 1930s, Mumford could imagine a different
outcome, so long as the distant rumblings of war could be silenced. The book's remaining three
chapters are devoted to Mumford's vision of urban, and by extension, cultural renewal. Technological
inventions powered by clean, electric energy would render the factory town obsolete. Intelligent,
rational planning would result in regional cities garden cities integrated fully with their surrounding
regions that would reduce the pressures on existing megalopolitan centers. Modern housing, based on
progressive experiments in Germany and the Netherlands, would shelter the working classes in comfort
and without false ostentation. Most important, the spirit of community that pervaded the medieval town
under the protective arm of the Church would live again, only now beneath the protective umbrella of
modern culture. "The culture of cities is ultimately the culture of life in its highest manifestations,"
Mumford concludes in the book's final pages (p. 492).
Mumford's optimism crumbled over the next several years. In the United States, the dismantling
of the New Deal dashed his hope for comprehensive coordinated planning. Europe again erupted in
war, and by its conclusion his son was among those killed in battle. The atomic bomb was invented and
detonated. Mumford continued to survey and write about cities in these years, but he became
increasingly concerned about the damage inflicted on them by the automobile and the multi-lane
highway. The City in History, although it provides fascinating new material, particularly on prehistoric
and ancient sites, is the work of an embittered, older man who believed that his ideas were being
ignored by his contemporaries. The framework for a new urban order is largely absent in this later
work.
Mumford strongly believed that so long as men and women desire face-to-face contact, cities
will endure in one form or another. Accordingly, the Culture of Cities will remain a relevant text for the
present-day and future reader who will necessarily place a higher value on such contact as cyberspace
renders it less frequent. Cities can become "eutopias", good places, but only if men and women will
them to be so. Never was a goal so simple or so elusive.
5. PLACE-WORK-FOLK by PGF Le Play
The use of energy to transport, treat, pump, convey, cool, and heat water and the parallel use of
water to extract, refine, and use energy is a relationship known as the energy-water nexus. Not only is
this relationship growing in importance as population growth and increasing living standards strain
both resources, but it also becomes more problematic as energy production moves towards more water
intensive practices and water requires increasing more energy to use. Despite a growing awareness of
this connection a lack of understanding exists across stakeholders in both fields and a significant need
exists for better cross-coordination and planning.
Over a century ago urban planner, Sir Patrick Geddes, provided ideas about environmental and
civic planning that if employed may improve the mutual constraints between energy and water.
Specifically, Geddes‘ development of 1) the integrated concept of ―place-work-folk‖ described below,
and 2) his suggestion for ranking and promoting societal activities based on their dual importance to
society and impact on nature, provide a balanced approach to the energy-water nexus. Representative
of his holistic thinking, both ideas recognize the mutual dependence between people and their
environment as a relationship necessary for life enhancement and survival of both. This analysis
employs a historical review of Geddes‘ theories with logical argumentation to illustrate the modern
applicability of his planning concepts to just one area of sustainable development with the intent that
their potential utility to other domains will become more apparent.
 One of Geddes‘ key theories was inspired by the work of the French economist Frederic le Play
who categorized sociology into the three elements: Lieu, Travail, Famille, or Place, Work, Folk. With
an academic background rich in biological studies, Geddes quickly identified the counterpart of le
Play‘s sociology elements in biology as: Environment, Function, Organism (Stalley, 1972). He then
blended these two triads and applied them to social issues as a way to describe the mutual influence
landscape (place) has on the occupations (work) and the society (folk) that develop in a region. Today
the concept of place is often referred to as a sense of place but continues to include connotations of
identity and character. Folk may be more usefully thought of as the cultivation of community and
group identity, and work generally encompasses employment, career, manual and creative work.
Geddes also added to the value of the original triad by emphasizing the importance of their
interrelationships and strongly encouraging their study as an organically related whole. Place-WORK,
for example, represents work that develops in a specific place such as mining in mountainous terrain or
fishing near the sea, and place-FOLK represents people influenced by their environment such as the
Eskimo culture that develops in colder climates (Boardman, 1944). Examples of these
interrelationships are illustrated in my recreation of one of his many Place-Folk-Work diagrams in Fig.
1.
Geddes understood comprehending each of these elements drove the necessity for extensive
data collection, or survey. A regional survey in fact became one of Geddes‘ trademark contributions to
the field of urban planning and as I show below, is a key element linking his planning theory to the
energy-water nexus. Geddes emphasized the survey first method as a correction in the chronological
order of existing town planning efforts. Specifically he noticed planning efforts in Great Britain were
proceeding before adequately surveying the geographical, cultural, and historical factors that create a
city (Boardman, 1944). Without this understanding Geddes considered the resulting town plans as
passable, but missing the key opportunity to create the best possible plan. He therefore appealed for an
end to ‗the isolation of our present facts from past ones,‘ and to redirect these efforts encouraged
consideration of the historical factors that profoundly modify the local situation and lead to different
social fabrics (Geddes, 1915). This advice is especially useful to planners as they leverage lessons
learned from previous planning efforts impacted by culture in unexpected ways.
A second key aspect of the Place-Work-Folk relationship is that the paradigm may be reversed
as Folk → Work → Place. To illustrate consider primitive societies in which the surroundings
influenced the occupations that developed depending on the environment, such as hunting that is
predominantly found in heavily forested areas. In more modern times people began to have greater
social mobility and thus greater choice in their occupations. Kitchen describes, ―people were not
necessarily mechanistically determined by environment in the Darwinian sense, but could exercise their
own will,‖ (Kitchen, 1975). For Geddes it follows that, ―Having chosen their work, they can fashion
the place; they can mould the environment in harmony with their ideals,‖ (Geddes in Kitchen, 1975). I
suggest it is this concept of making occupational and cultural choices based on ideals that is especially
important in applying Geddesian planning to the energy-water nexus in order to make tough decisions
between competing priorities for these resources.
6. BROADACRE CITY by FRANK LLYOD WRIGHT
As early as the 1920s, Frank Lloyd Wright began to regard his
architectural work as an integral part of a larger concept which he
called Broadacre City. This new democratic city, as envisioned by
Wright, would take advantage of modern technology and
communications to decentralize the old city and create an environment
in which the individual would flourish. Here, we briefly discuss
Broadacre City and the forces that shaped Wright‘s thinking at the time
of its creation. Included are the personal recollections of Cornelia
Brierly, one of Wright‘s first apprentices.

On April 15, 1935, in the heart of Rockefeller Center in New York, Frank Lloyd Wright
mounted an exhibition featuring a radical project called Broadacre City, in which he proposed to
resettle the entire population of the United States onto individual homesteads. A veritable Trojan horse
that challenged the very urbanity of the space where it was exhibited, Broadacre City advanced an idea
of decentralization whereby communities would be based on small-scale farming and manufacturing,
local government, and property ownership.
Broadacre City was an urban or suburban development concept proposed by Frank Wright.
Broadacre‘s vast suburban landscape, seemingly scattered across an entire continent, anticipates the
prevailing urban context.
In Broadacre City each family is give one acre (4000 m2) of land on which to build a house and
grow food. The city was considered to be (almost) fully self-sufficient. The car was to be the main
mode of transport. Some clean industry was planned along the edges of the city.
 Conceived at the height of the Great Depression, Wright never intended to build Broadacre City
but rather used it as a vehicle to address pressing social, economic, and environmental issues, many of
which have contemporary relevance. His vision invites us to reflect on questions of our own time, such
as the role of government, social and economic equality, infrastructure and sustainability, and how to
foster community.
The Broadacre City exhibition was sponsored by the National Alliance of Art and Industry, a
Rockefeller-funded initiative that endeavored to educate the public about advances in American
industry. Its centerpiece was a 12-foot by 12-foot model that represented 4-square miles of ―typical
countryside‖ accommodating 1,400 families. Within this radius, all elemental units of modern society
were included: farms, factories, offices, schools, parks and recreational spaces, places of worship, a
seat of government, and individual houses [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2]. The scale was local, as Wright
emphasized: ―…little farms, little homes for industry, little factories, little schools, and
a little university.‖ Every citizen of Broadacre was a property owner—a minimum of one acre of land,
or more according to need—and also owned at least one car, as transportation was primarily by
automobile. Wright envisioned that the low-density community represented in the Broadacre model
would be replicated across the United States, creating a network of small communities that would be
connected together by highways and telecommunication systems, such as radio and telephone [Fig. 8].
Accompanying the Broadacre model were smaller models of individual projects, drawings, and
text panels that together told the story of Wright‘s utopian vision [Fig. 3]. At the entrance, a panel
introduced the overall theme of Broadacre: DECENTRALIZATION INTEGRATION. Once inside the
installation, various other didactic panels outlined the main arguments. THE FUTURE IS
EVERYWHERE OR NOWHERE points to the sweeping nature of Wright‘s proposal. OUT OF THE
GROUND INTO THE LIGHT speaks to the agrarian ideal behind Broadacre, with its tapestry of small
farms and privately owned land. Below this, further explanation:
7. THE EUROPEAN TRADITION
From our position as Americans, geographically distant from the theoretical discussions of
Europe and faced with needs and circumstances somewhat different from those of European theorists
and urban designers, we can distinguish four stances in European theories of urban design in the
twentieth century: functionalist, humanist, systemic, and formalist. Instead of attempting to articulate
each one and to sort out the disagreements among its various proponents, we find it more useful here to
discuss each generically.

These four stances in European urban design are not in themselves precise and internally
consistent theories but inclinations, predispositions, or directions. By conceiving of them in this way,
we can accommodate the ideas and hopes of a range of individuals in several countries over a number
of decades—their values, visions, and means for tackling urban problems. In trying to understand these
stances in urban design theory, we asked the following questions:

1. How do the proponents of each stance envision cities?

2. What is the evidence that a particular stance influenced design and planning decisions?
3. What factors are instrumental in achieving environmental design quality?
4. Which decision-making methods are associated with this stance?
5. What is its attitude toward the past?
6. What assumptions do proponents make about the nature and purpose of the urban center?
7. What are typical criticisms of this orientation in urban design?

Our particular concern is the implications for urban regeneration and rejuvenation associated
with each stance.

The Functionalist Stance

Of the four orientations we examine here, functionalism, with the longest history, has been the
most comprehensively outlined. Its origins are in the Bauhaus and the work of Le Corbusier; its credo
is the Athens Charter of the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM), issued in 1933.
Workability and competence are its goals. It is the equivalent in urban planning of the modern
movement in architecture. This is not to say that the functionalist view is consistent. It originated in the
1920s and dominated design theory into the 1950s, evolving in response to criticism and changing
conditions. In part because of such periodic corrections, we prefer the terms stance or orientation to the
more specific term theory . A theory of urban design needs to describe the nature of urban settings, the
goals for urban form and use, and a method for realizing the goals that is consistent with the nature of
the settings. A stance is similar but less precise. It points to a constellation of individuals with similar
values, among whom there can nonetheless be considerable differences of opinion and emphasis.

Functionalism envisions the city as a collection of uses to be accommodated: residence, work, leisure,
and the traffic systems that serve them. In early functionalist thought the city was characterized as a
machine, in later thought, as a complex organism and as a network or constellation of community
centers linked to and directed by a central core.[1] A functionalist city is equitable; it does not favor or
neglect social groups. Everyone benefits from adequate sunlight, fresh air, and access to open space.
 Functionalist theory treats residence, work, and leisure as discrete elements. Activities should
not mix; hence zoning is a key element of the functionalist city, for in a zoned environment, activities
can proceed with little or no interference from other activities. In functionalist urban planning,
organizing functional relations in a two-dimensional plan usually takes precedence over organizing
other relations. The graphics associated with each of the four orientations are telling: functionalist
schemes rely heavily on plan drawings, whereas humanist, systemic, and formalist schemes are
typified, respectively, by intimate views, diagrams, and bird's-eye perspectives.

Though functionalist theory calls for the separation of activities, in one locale, the heart or core
of the city, these must be commingled. The idealized purpose of the urban center is "to enable people to
meet one another to exchange ideas." Therefore that center "must be attractive to all types of people in
the region it serves"—a place of rendezvous, spontaneity, organized activity, refuge. In sum, the urban
center should engender "civic consciousness." It is more than a machine for making money and more
than a crossroads for traffic and goods: "The Core includes other elements, often of an imponderable
nature." Necessary to the success of the urban center is the absence of vehicular traffic, for the urban
center is the domain of pedestrians.

In the ideogram summarizing the functionalist stance, orthogonal planning is

set within the organic framework of the medieval city.The grain of the functionalist
plan is regular and includes muchopen space. Based on a plan for Coventry,
England, published in Architect and Building News, 21 March 1941.

Though not a feature of its dogma, orthogonal planning characterizes most functionalist urban
design. Schemes tend to mix formal and asymmetrical elements in a visual treatment that seems all of a
piece because of the underlying rectilinear format. This admixture seems to satisfy a further
functionalist goal—that contemporary towns exhibit contemporary (constructivist, cubist) means of
expression.
The quality of functionalist design depends on how competently it accommodates needs and
activities and on how well it uses light, space, and greenery, the ingredients of an urban plan that
enhance daily experience. Open space is highly valued—not vast spaces but controlled, demarcated
spaces adjacent to functional areas. This value may be seen as a reaction to crowded conditions in
medieval towns and nineteenth-century industrial cities.
 Functionalist theory calls for research, a thorough analysis of needs and circumstances, and a
deliberative decision-making process by trained professionals. They must coordinate natural,
sociological, economic, and other factors specific to the cultural context and stage of development.
Planning anticipates rather than responds: "Intelligent forecasts will have sketched its future, described
its character, foreseen the extent of its expansions, and limited their excesses in advance."

Whereas functionalist thinking is associated with Le Corbusier and CIAM, Constantine

Doxiadis's later ekistic theory may be seen as a "correction" and elaboration of that tradition. Ekistic
principles include (1) being realistic; (2) thinking at long range and with broad scope; (3) identifying,
evaluating, and classifying problems to be addressed; (4) establishing policies to guide decisions; (5)
devising plans that follow from those policies; (6) evaluating constantly; and (7) reappraising
periodically.

According to the functionalist view, historically significant buildings should be preserved for
their educational value, but the layout of historic districts should not be the basis for planning
contemporary towns. Urban developments that occurred by chance or grew from particular historical
imperatives are notorious for their inhumane living conditions. Medieval precincts of cities and
industrial slums are evidence of inadequate methods for urban development.

Typical functionalist land use plan.

Derived from a Victor Gruen scheme for Fresno, California.

Critics of functionalism argue that it deals with urban design only impersonally, at a large scale:
"A land-use master plan for a big city is largely a matter of proposed placement, often in relation to
transportation, of many series of decontaminated sortings." The human scale is often neglected. Then,
too, the general categories that functionalism considers, like residence and traffic, fail to acknowledge
subtleties. In fact these variables may well be the wrong ones to begin with in urban design, for they do
not take into account "the personality of the inhabitants" and are "too often inhuman." The functionalist
vision is "negative" because "it conceives of buildings merely as scaffolding for functional variations,
abstract containers that embody whatever functions successively fill them." Separation and zoning may
ameliorate nuisance and the interference of functional parts, but such a division of activities also works
against richness. The hustle and bustle of downtown, or of a neighborhood center, are impossible when
uses are sorted out and treated in standardized ways: "A hierarchy of human associations should
replace the functional hierarchy of the Charte d'Athènes ."

Functionalist designers are accused of responding to superficial and ephemeral wants, fashions,
and pressures rather than to long-standing cultural traditions. For some critics this concern with the
transitory is a manifestation of bourgeois, capitalist culture: "The vulgarity of late capitalist architecture
is as much caused by the random profusion of building types as by the endless invention of building
materials and construction systems; [it is] not an outcome of rationalisation but of maximisation of
profits."

Finally, the single-mindedness of the functionalist stance threatens to overwhelm regional and
cultural differences. Functional analysis describes rather than explains the city: "It does not posit any
element of continuity between the genre de vie and the urban structure." "We are willing to accept
functional classification as a practical and contingent criterion, the equivalent of a number of other
criteria—for example, social make-up, constructional system, development of the area, and so on—
since such classifications have a certain utility; nonetheless it is clear that they are more useful for
telling us about the point of view adopted for classification than about an element itself."

The Humanist Stance

The humanist position is not as clearly and comprehensively formulated as the functionalist.
Rather, it is a collection of intentions, techniques, and design ideas offered by a diverse group of
proponents. It emerged in the 1950s and 1960s not as a new theory but as a reaction to the
unsatisfactory results of functionalist thinking and design. Among those representing humanist attitudes
were the British townscape school, disaffected CIAM members who took the name Team 10, and
certain Dutch architects.

Although both functionalist and humanist approaches are responsive to needs, the former begins
at the macro scale, with zoning for industry, housing, and so forth and necessary transport connections,
whereas the latter begins by examining the impact of small-scale elements on day-to-day experiences:

An ideogram for humanist urban design recalls the drawings

of Gordon Cullen andKenneth Browne.
Humanist qualities are suggested in the visual variety, attention to
small scale, depiction of people engaged in activities,
and annotations through which
the designer "scripts" the place. From a drawing by
Kenneth Browne, published in West End
(London: Architectural Press, 1971).
 Functionalist planning imposes a structure upon the city, whereas humanist planning seeks to
realize and enhance pre-existing and underlying social structures. Land-use diagrams are typical
illustrative techniques for functionalist schemes; a humanist design is more likely to be described with
a set of sequential drawings depicting a user's perception of the place and conveying a variegated visual
character or with a diagram of behavioral patterns.

For those whose first concern is the human experience of the city and its social life, the good
city is best understood as a collection of enclaves not unlike villages. These are shaped by and reflect
the individuals and groups who inhabit them. Humanist designers expect the inhabitants of a city to
"appropriate" the environment and make it their own; they believe that the city should not be a fait
accompli but that people should specify and help to create what they want. Self-help and reliance on
neighbors are better than dependency on a centralized government: "The more somebody is personally
able to influence his surroundings, the more involved and attentive he becomes, and also the more
likely he will be to give them his love and care. What we offer cannot be neutral; it must be the raw
material, as it were, containing the 'intentions' out of which everyone can make his own choice in a
particular situation, extracting from it precisely the intention which 'resonates' with his intentions." In
other cases where the design task is more complicated, an advocate intervenes on behalf of users to
improve what producers offer.

Decisions are based on users' needs and circumstances rather than on concepts: "The best way
to plan for downtown is to see how people use it today; to look for its strengths and to exploit and
reinforce them. There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to
them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans." Decision making tends to be incremental rather than set
by a master plan. Insofar as centralized planning is needed, its goal should be to "catalyze" and
"nourish" rather than to direct: "The science of city planning and the art of city design, in real life for
real cities, must become the science and art of catalyzing and nourishing . . . close-grained working
relationships."

Whereas on the small scale inhabitants mold the city in a multitude of ways as they pursue
myriad personal visions, at the larger scale there are meaningful "monuments" that represent an
enduring shared heritage, neither transient nor personal. Acknowledging this difference, Dutch
humanist architects distinguish between special buildings of enduring character and everyday
architecture that serves the immediate needs and desires of the populace. For them the city thus both
reflects the evolving requirements of its inhabitants and testifies to timeless cultural values and
patterns. Present and past intertwine. For Aldo van Eyck, "the time has come to bring together the old
into the new; to rediscover the archaic principles of human nature."

The humanist urban designer pays attention to small-scale elements and informal ordering
systems, avoiding large-scale, superimposed geometries. Design in human scale achieves familiarity
and the sense that things have been made by and for people. Van Eyck affirms the importance of fitting
architecture to the people who inhabit it; the mission of architecture, in other words, is to assist in
man's homecoming.

Humanist designers, moreover, advocate a mixed use of the urban environment. Functional
zoning and functional distinctions are not the norm; instead, activities and elements overlap and are
interwoven so the "drama is released." For example, whereas functionalist streets are principally for
automobiles, humanist streets are domesticated and become"livable" places "for people. "In the suburbs
and slums the vital relationship between the house and the street survives, children run about, . . .
people stop and talk, dismantled vehicles are parked, . . . you know the milkman, you are outside your
house in your street. . . . Streets [should] be places and not corridors or balconies. Thoroughfares where
there are shops, post boxes, telephone kiosks." When traffic hazards, noise, and pollution are controlled
on these streets, the pavements become a stage for the theater of neighborhood life. Urban character
comes from a rich mix, what Jane Jacobs calls "organized complexity."

Humanists believe that the future city need not differ much from the present one insofar as the
present one is satisfactory. Any changes that are needed will be patterned more often on elements of
existing neighborhoods and districts than on new concepts. In effect, tradition is a sourcebook of these
elements that were thrown out or ignored by functionalist design, which sought to invent a new and
different future. Humanist urban design finds lessons in the past, among them specific borrowable
features that make places visually more appealing and more congenial: kiosks, bollards, granite pavers,
benches, and so forth. Humanist designers also borrow from vernacular traditions such qualities and
patterns as market squares, passages, and clustered housing. Because they suspect direct imitation and
worry about pastiche and phoniness, humanist urban designers translate borrowed ideas from the past
into modern terms whenever possible. Humanists like Aldo van Eyck complain that "modern architects
have been harping continually on what is different in our time to such an extent that even they have lost
touch with what is not different, with what is always essentially the same."

A traditional village mixes uses at a human scale and thus

is a model for humanist design.
Based on a plan in Maurice Beresford,
New Towns of the Middle Ages (London: Lutterworth, 1967).

Whereas a functionalist urban designer might conceive of the urban center as a place for the
impersonal exchange of goods and information and thus design it to be efficient for this process, the
humanist designer sees the center as enhancing the human experience of these activities. Intimacy and
richness of experience must go hand in hand with efficiency. The urban center is not so much a tool of
commerce as a richly variegated composite of experiences. Designers must consider "what makes a city
center magnetic, what can inject the gaiety, the wonder, the cheerful hurly-burly that make people want
to come into the city and to linger there. For magnetism is the crux of the problem. All downtown's
values are its by-products. To create in it an atmosphere of urbanity and exuberance is not a frivolous
aim."

Critics say that humanists do not consider the large-scale issues and overall needs of the city.
Although houses may be designed at the grass roots, housing is a system that needs a comprehensive
perspective and approach. The incremental planning that characterizes the humanist method can create
problems in the workings of the larger urban system. And the design-by-committee approach inherent
in humanist theory slows down improvement and makes conflict inevitable. The future of cities is too
complex a task for the naive and the untrained.

The efforts of the humanist designer to achieve small-scale familiarity often result in pastiche.
In appealing to the senses, such a design often fails the mind. It focuses on perceived surfaces and
neglects and devalues deeper concepts. In short, it can be little more than scenographic.

The Systemic Stance

The systemic approach emphasizes large-scale elements of urban design and seeks an overall
order for the urban place. Its Team 10 proponents asserted "comprehensibility" as an overriding value.
Systemic theory accepts urbanization and increasing societal complexity as inevitable. The key to
successful urban design in a complex world is organizing the underlying systems, not individual
buildings.

Although systemic theory gives priority to large-scale urban ordering, exactly what is ordered
can vary. For some urban design theorists, achieving diagrammatic clarity in transportation systems is
the principal task: "Today our most obvious failure is the lack of comprehensibility and identity in big
cities, and the answer is surely in a clear, large scale road system—the 'Urban Motorway' lifted from an
ameliorative function to a unifying function." Flow and movement are the source of architecture;
expressways order the city. For other designers, particularly certain Dutch architects, urban structure
results from a physical armature ("support") to which "detachable units" are added: "An area can be
differentiated over which the individual has control and another over which the community collectively
decides." Recognizing that both transportation and shelter must be accommodated, some systemic
urban design solutions integrate the two systems. The city, for them, is an interlocked system of
movement corridors and structural armatures supporting housing and other uses.

From a practical point of view, overall urban ordering is necessary because of the demands of
vehicular traffic, the dependency of modern life on communications, and the need for the rapid,
continuous production of building elements. Efficiency in communications is achieved, in part, by
separating modes of transportation; the possibility of conflict is reduced when, for example, high-speed
and low-speed movement are separated and when pedestrians are removed from vehicular systems. But
the rapid growth of cities and the deterioration of aging buildings also necessitate efficiency. The
assembly-line production of building elements seems necessary to satisfy burgeoning demands for both
new and replacement shelter. As a consequence, elements of such urban systems favor an industrial
aesthetic. Systems designers advise developing "an aesthetic appropriate to mechanized building
techniques and scales of operation" because such a correlation of form and manufacture is rational.
Further, they find much mass housing to be culturally obsolescent and prefer "a genuinely twentieth-
century technological image of the dwelling—comfortable, safe and not feudal."
 One innovation of systemic thinking is the notion that areas do not have to be cleared for
rejuvenation to take place. Functionalist theory presupposes a clean slate, but systemic theory proposes
that linear systems (of movement, of new construction) be woven into and around existing structures.
Instead of conceiving of the urban fabric as a collection of building masses, systemic design treats it as
a dynamic web of connections. Systems are conceived as able to grow and change incidentally without
compromising the underlying order. Change of this sort is assumed to be a feature of modern life. The
contrast between simple, abstract, orderly patterns and complex existing patterns is marked, as schemes
by Yona Friedman and Kenzo Tange demonstrate—one hovering above a traditional city, the other
harbored adjacent to it.

The ideogram for the systemic orientation emphasizes the dimensionless underlying order,
which remains despite additions and subtractions.
Based on a design for Caen-Herouville by Shadrach Woods, published
in Urbanism Is Everybody's Business (Stuttgart: Karl Krämer, 1968).

A new urban structure imposed upon an older fabric.

Based on a drawing by Yona Friedman in L'Architecture Mobile
(Tournai, Belgium: Casterman, 1970.)
 Kenzo Tange's Tokyo Bay Project.
After a drawing published in Japan Architect (April 1961).
Tange proposed a highly structured extension of Tokyo into Tokyo Bay.

Whereas we use the term systemic to refer to this stance in urban design theory, others
sometimes use the term structuralist . This difference in terminology is a potential source of confusion
when, for example, Kenzo Tange uses the term structuring in discussing the systems concept. He calls
for "networks of communication" imitating a living body and the ability of the structure to grow and
change. Identifying this stance in urban design theory as structuralist may cause confusion because
Claude Lévi-Strauss and others use the term to refer to anthropological concepts. Although Tange's
structure and the anthropologists' and others' structuralism have some common concerns, they are
fundamentally different ideas. Systemic structure imposes an order upon the world; structuralist
structure finds inherent order, finds similarities between social patterns in African villages and
industrial slums, for example.

Anthropological structuralism, although it can inform systemic design and planning, falters as a
guide. Lévi-Strauss himself pointed out that to search for underlying order is not the same as imposing
order on phenomena. In effect, structuralist anthropologists have the luxury of analyzing what exists
and stopping, whereas systems-oriented urban designers must analyze and then build. For example,
Alison and Peter Smithson's studies of association and identity in neighborhoods led to the
development of "systems of linked building complexes, which were intended to correspond more
closely to the network of social relationships, as they now exist [in cities], than the existing patterns of
finite spaces and self-contained buildings." The anthropological concept of structure is relevant to our
discussion. But instead of associating it with one theoretical orientation, like systemic theory, we find
aspects of it in several of the approaches to urban design. Systemic, humanist, and even formalist
theories in one way or another each reflect certain structuralist premises and concerns.

In architecture, structuralism in the anthropological sense is most often associated with Dutch
architects like Herman Hertzberger and Aldo van Eyck and with a particular concern to make places
that are meaningful. In that context more often than not it refers to building design rather than urban
design. When Dutch structuralists design at the larger urban scale, their structuralism resembles
Tange's structuring (what we call systemic thinking) and is related less to human behavior, than to the
goal of having structures that can be modified to suit changing circumstances. Team 10 architects
whom we identify with the humanist stance sometimes evidence structuralist values.

Because town building must respond to the scale of movement systems, and systemic design
tends to be abstract, designs for specific details are often absent. It is not that the human scale is of no
concern but that design at the small scale apparently is left to others or to another stage of the design
process. The unit of order, instead of being buildings as it has been traditionally, is now the connective
system.

The extensive character of systemic urban design means that decision making must be
centralized and guided by trained planners and architects. Typically they begin by seeking (or
imposing) an underlying structure of movement. Other decisions follow. The design of smaller parts
may be undertaken by others, even by groups of citizens and by individuals, for some advocates of the
systemic approach assume that such participation at the smaller scale of design "humanizes" the
system. Others, however, assume that because the design of the parts linked by the system must be
technologically sophisticated, it requires trained designers.

Most proponents of systemic urban design accept obsolescence as a fact of modern industrial
civilization. Although they believe that the underlying urban system remains intact, they assume that its
elements are added to or replaced in a continuing program of improvement: "To understand and use the
possibilities offered by a 'throwaway' technology, [we must] create a new sort of environment with
different cycles of change for different functions." Improvements include both the substitution of
workable for worn-out parts and the incorporation of new elements to meet the changing needs of
inhabitants.

Modern transportation and modern industrial production, in particular, have made large parts of the city
of the past obsolete. Because future needs and circumstances will also differ from those of both the past
and the present, the very parts that constitute the city must be disposable. Nonetheless, even with the
changes necessary to counter obsolescence, the urban framework will remain as the structure, the
system within which changes occur.

Because it conceives of the city as a web or network that does not depend upon a center,
systemic theory has little to say about the urban core. In the case of multi-nucleated urban settings, the
historical center might have a specialized role as a repository and center of culture and the arts. Or it
might be the focus of finance. But conceptually it would be only one of several foci of activity.

According to its critics, systemic design ignores the validity and workability of established
physical and social fabrics: systemic solutions do not necessarily improve on the past; they uproot
existing patterns and introduce alien ones.

Moreover, even though the clarity of systemic approaches improves the legibility of the urban
fabric and the efficiency of its operation, smaller-scale, "messy," life-enhancing considerations are left
to chance. Many designers favoring systemic approaches acknowledge the importance of small-scale
"grain" but do not always specify how the development of an appropriate life-enhancing grain can be
assured.
Finally, critics point out that although the vast systems with changeable components must of necessity
be produced with modern industrial technologies, the concomitant industrial aesthetic is alien to many
people.

The Formalist Stance

What we call formalist approaches are those that value particular archetypal or universal
configurations of urban space and form. For Beaux-Arts planners, these configurations most often
entailed axial organizations and static spaces drawing upon elementary geometries. These reflected a
notion of universal order and harmony. More recently, for neo-rationalist designers, for example, who
are interested in a less regular "public realm," these configurations have been the streets, squares, and
public monuments that structure urban fabrics.

Given the dramatically different socio-economic associations of Beaux-Arts and neo-rationalist

practice (the first with hierarchical and upper-middle class values, the second with collective form and
populist ideology), it may seem curious to find them linked here as "formalist." Granted, their motives
and methods are not similar, but the focus of both is physical form and its associational meanings. And
each assumes the existence of timeless design figures from which urban design should be drawn. These
are discovered in part through the study of typologies and precedents: "A few building materials and
the elaboration of an urban building typology will create a new architectural discipline of simple
nobility and monumentality."

In finding sufficiency in earlier forms, the formalist stance lacks the forward-looking idealism
of other theories that assume a better way of doing things can be found if we abandon inadequate old
methods and seek workable new ones. Instead, formalism argues that satisfactory patterns for
accommodating human need and nurturing the spirit exist in our cultural and urban heritage. For
example, for neo-rationalists, a particular feature of older cities that has been lost through functionalist
land-use zoning is the richness of cities-within-the-city, quartiers or districts that integrate all the
functions of urban life.

Although it would be easy to characterize the formalist stance as backward-looking idealism,

most formalist discourse does not in fact characterize the past as a better time to which we should
return but maintains only that traditional solutions contain ideas that work and that these ideas carry
with them the ingredient of memory that new architectural forms and new urban spaces inevitably lack.
Neo-rationalism does not propose the replication of historical urban fabrics but the use of the past as a
filter through which the future is conceived. For Beaux-Arts designers the past was a collection of
examples from which to learn, examples that are themselves variations on valued precedents. Thus
buildings from the past, forms with cultural significance, lead design insofar as they are good and
workable.

Though neo-rationalist and Beaux-Arts formalism originated in formal ordering systems, their
products have differed in scale and texture. The neo-rationalist city is a collage of patterned solids and
voids. Its parts are imbued with what might be called poetic tension growing from the inherent
opposition of solid and void, of figure and ground. Some parts are unabashedly grand and intended as
"public realm," whereas other parts are pointedly unassuming private realms. Leon Krier describes the
countervailing elements as public "monuments" and "anonymous fabric." The parts of which the urban
collage is composed refer to historical spaces and forms but are reinterpretations rather than replicas.
The city and its buildings do not necessarily seek to satisfy specific needs (as functionalist buildings
do) but accommodate changing patterns of use in timeless forms.
 The ideogram for the formalist stance distinguishes between public realms
and the anonymous urban fabric, the former comprising familiar urban
forms like the square, avenue, and monument and elemental architectural
treatments like the arcade.

Whereas neo-rationalist formalism tends towards a heterogeneous collage, Beaux-Arts urban

design favors hierarchy and extensive axial ordering systems; its urban fabric includes many figural
buildings, buildings striving not for anonymity but for identity.

According to Anthony Vidler, a rational architecture "is clearly based on reason, classification
and a sense of the public in architecture." From our point of view, "reason" means open-minded
observation and straightforward methods of production. "Classification" takes the form of seeing and
valuing traditional patterns of urban space and building form (typological and morphological studies).
"A sense of the public in architecture" means poetry. The approach is conservative, yet there is also
room for imagination and change within the tradition. In Beaux-Arts design, too, appropriate precedent
is chosen and modified to suit particular necessities. Always there is a dialogue between the universal
and the particular.

For neo-rationalists, incremental action is preferable to large-scale, comprehensive action:

"With respect to urban intervention today one should operate on a limited part of the city. . . . Such a
self-imposed limitation is a more realistic approach from the standpoint of both knowledge and
program." In the Beaux-Arts mode, the intervention was more often an extensive restructuring, a
correcting of earlier circumstantial and limited visions.

The urban center is the means and the symbol of public life. It makes possible and dignifies
collective activities. It is a reflection of long-standing urban traditions, evocative and deeply
memorable. Paradoxically, although neo-rationalist theory does not define the urban center, it
nonetheless considers that center the essence of urbanism, the place where strands of life are brought
together. An urban center in Beaux-Arts terms would be hierarchically the grandest, the noblest, the
best embodiment of order, proportion, and harmony. Its value is formal, not experiential or functional.
It would symbolize more than it would weave urban life.
 Formalist urban design is criticized for being concerned largely with aesthetic matters and only
incidentally with real needs: "Successful urban forms often are the product of less than admirable social
conditions." The CIAM criticism of City Beautiful design was similar: "Urbanism can no longer submit
exclusively to the rules of gratuitous aestheticism. It is functional by its very nature." Jane Jacobs's
criticism of formalism reiterates the theme: "There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or
disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or
suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and be served. . . . It is futile to plan a city's
appearance, or speculate on how to endow it with a pleasing appearance of order, without knowing
what sort of innate, functioning order it has."

Critics of formalist thinking argue that neither nostalgia for a timeless past nor utopian visions
of the future guarantee good architecture. Nor do they accept with resignation the view that mankind is
unchanging. Further, they ask if it is realistic for neo-rationalist architects to advocate a return to a
crafts tradition in light of real building economics.

Although much is constant in human life and culture, changes are neither insignificant nor
necessarily inconsequential. Vehicular traffic is a fact of modern urban life that cannot be ignored, and
traditional urban patterns are incapable of accommodating it. What should be done when the existing
urban fabric is inappropriate to new needs or is otherwise unsatisfactory? (It is worth noting that neo-
rationalists tend to ignore the automobile and act as if it will disappear, whereas systemic theory comes
close to making a fetish of vehicular movement, letting it structure urban form.)

Finally, are medieval and Renaissance urban fabrics in Europe really generic and universally
appropriate, even in the vast regions of the world that have developed in the last one hundred to two
hundred years? Critics of formalism point out, for example, that "the square is at present an
anachronism, having succumbed to the popularity of the supermarket, the telephone, and the
television." And although still other distinctive urban patterns might have grown from local conditions
in other regions and be available as models, what if there are no such historical elements to constitute a
tradition, or what if historical patterns are inadequate to serve contemporary needs? In short, is the
structure of European cities or any historical urbanism as universally appropriate as neo-rationalist
theory suggests?
8. LINEAR CITY (LA CIUDAD LINEAL) BY ARTURO SORIA Y MATA
Arturo Soria y Mata's idea of the Linear city (1882)
replaced the traditional idea of the city as a centre and a
periphery with the idea of constructing linear sections of
infrastructure - roads, railways, gas, water, etc.- along an optimal
line and then attaching the other components of the city along the
length of this line. As compared to the concentric diagrams of
Ebenezer Howard and other in the same period, Soria's linear
city creates the infrastructure for a controlled process of
expansion that joins one growing city to the next in a rational
way, instead of letting them both sprawl. The linear city was
meant to ‗ruralize the city and urbanize the countryside‘, and to
be universally applicable as a ring around existing cities, as a
strip connecting two cities, or as an entirely new linear town
across an unurbanized region. The idea was later taken up by
Nikolay Alexandrovich Milyutin in the planning circles of the
1920s Soviet Union. The Ciudad Lineal was a practical
application of the concept.

Arturo Soria's project for the Ciudad Lineal of Madrid.

The linear city was an urban plan for an elongated urban formation. The city would consist of a
series of functionally specialized parallel sectors. Generally, the city would run parallel to a river and
be built so that the dominant wind would blow from the residential areas to the industrial strip. The
sectors of a linear city would be:

1. a purely segregated zone for railway lines,

2. a zone of production and communal enterprises, with related scientific, technical and educational
institutions,
3. a green belt or buffer zone with major highway,
4. a residential zone, including a band of social institutions, a band of residential buildings and a
"children's band",
5. a park zone, and
6. an agricultural zone with gardens and state-run farms (sovkhozy in the Soviet Union).
 As the city expanded, additional sectors would be added to the end of each band, so that the city
would become ever longer, without growing wider.
The linear city design was first developed by Arturo Soria y Mata in Madrid, Spain during the
19th century, but was promoted by the Soviet planner Nikolai Alexander Milyutin in the late 1920s.
(Milyutin justified placing production enterprises and schools in the same band with Engels' statement
that "education and labour will be united".)
Ernst May, a famous German functionalist architect, formulated his initial plan for
Magnitogorsk, a new city in the Soviet Union, primarily following the model that he had established
with his Frankfurt settlements: identical, equidistant five-story communal apartment buildings and an
extensive network of dining halls and other public services.

The planning of Ciudad Lineal (1895-1910) published by Madrid Urbanization Company.

CONCEPT: LINEAR CITY

• Invented Urban Telephone Networks Of A Subway System For Madrid.

• Established A Magazine On Urbanism Called "La Ciudad Lineal.‖
• First Linear City Around Madrid To Fruition Intended To Be 48 Kilometres Long, Ringing The City,
With A 7 Kilometre Radial Connection.
• Soria's Linear City Creates The Infrastructure For A Controlled Process Of Expansion That Joins One
Growing City To The Next In A Rational Way, Instead Of Letting Them Both Sprawl.
THE LINEAR CITY

• The linear city was a proposal made by Arturio Soria at the end of
the 19th century, to turn Madrid into a more human city , a city which
was closer to nature.
• Arturo Soria´s aim was to solve some of the problems that Madrid
had at that time: transport, overpopulation and sanitary conditions.
• Expand the city along the spine of transport.

The Linear City Movement

The Linear City was an urban plan for an elongated urban formation. The city would consist of
a series of functionally specialized parallel sectors. Generally, the city would run parallel to a river and
be built so that the dominant wind would blow from the residential areas to the industrial strip.
9. THE RADIANT CITY (LA VILLE RADIEUSE) BY CHARLES-ÉDOUARD JEANNERET
OR LE CORBUSIER
Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, born October, 6th 1887, is known as one of the most important
architects of the last century. Otherwise, he is also seen extremely controversial in-between his artistic
municipality. According to his point of view of architecture as a complex art of construction, he also
dealt with architectural theory, city planning, sculpture and designing of furniture. Additionally, he was
creative in drawing and painting.1 In ―L‘Esprit Nouveau‖ - an artistic magazine published since 1920 -
he began to use the pseudonym Le Corbusier.
Due to architecture, Le Corbusier‘s so-called ―Five Points of a new Architecture‖ are very
important. These principles point out a radical architectural change in order to react to the accelerating
progress of mechanization and its influence on social change. As a result, Le Corbusier especially dealt
with the construction of accommodations to implement his complex theory consistently. So-called
―Doppelhaus in der Weißenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart‖ - designed by Pierre Jeanneret and Le Corbusier -
seems to be an example.
To give his theories and visions a suited area, Le Corbusier academically worked in
architectural societies like ―Congrès Internationaux d‘Architecture Moderne‖ (CIAM). However, the
architect was one of CIAM‘s co-founders.
Until the mid 1920s, Le Corbusier was both, a social and an artistic supporter of capitalism.
―Ville Contemporaire‖ (1922) with its forced authority, clear structure and geometry is an important
evidence for his ideal. Since the beginning of the crisis of global economy in 1929, Le Corbusier has
changed his point of view in a more radical one. The architect became an infernal supporter of so-
called French syndicalism.
Le Corbusier died on August, 27th 1965.
“Ville Radieuse”
The concept of ―Ville Radieuse‖ especially correlates with Le Corbusier‘s theory of residential
buildings. The architect examined one‘s resident as a kind of cubicle. It ought to be multifunctional and
flexibly reclaimable. Thereby, Le Corbusier processed the biological unity of humans, again. The
blueprints of his cubicles are based on CIAM‘s proposal regarding low cost housing, which was
published at Brussels in 1930. According to this idea, Le Corbusier and Charlotte Perriand designed a
fourteen-square-meter-standard of residential buildings. They combined large and opened surfaces with
smaller, more concentrated space concepts. Thus, the dimensions of residents diversified from
bachelor‘s habitable surfaces up to living spaces occupied by extended families. Parts of this theory
were published in ―Ville Radieuse‖ in 1935.
―Ville Radieuse‖ unifies Le Corbusier‘s visions of modern town construction and elements of
residential building. Hence, the architect dealt with both, architectural and urban construction as well as
social images of the city. ―If the city were to become a human city, it would be a city without
classes.‖ To follow this assumption, Le Corbusier described a pyramid of natural hierarchies. Its
geometrical shape is geared to the ideas of French syndicalism. The pyramid pretends the city‘s
structure and its organization. The perfect collaboration of all parts of the hierarchy finally creates the
beauty of the city. As a result, the residential district becomes the paramount place of freedom within
the city.
In order to transfer his new ideas of town construction, Le Corbusier demanded to remove traditional
cities. ―Ville Radieuse‖ alters the idea of the city-as-body. Therefore, the city map still consists of a
classical body with its head (business centre) and its heart (cultural centre). Though, the central axes
are not bilaterally symmetrically applied. The plainness of the complex is seen as a biological
development - like the roots of a tree. As a result, the city only consists of one central axe. In this vein,
the map is getting essentially flexible and less artistic.
The above-named residential complexes are the epicentre of urban life. They are available for
all inhabitants; they are no longer subjected to the elite. The equability of the population also becomes
visual via identical times of approach between both, the residential districts and the city as well as the
building complex and the industrial districts. The railway station and the airport are installed between
the residential districts. Its borderland is planned to settle social-service institutions. ―Ville Radieuse‘s‖
industrial districts do not essentially differ from ―Ville Contemporaire‘s‖ areas of industrialization. The
freight terminal and the railway station are separated from each other. Different branches of industry
obtain several surfaces. Furthermore, some parts of the industrial district are built of standardized
assembly units in order to react to the various arrangements of the trades.
Le Corbusier thought the problems of traditional business centres were solved by publishing
―Ville Contemporaire‖ Hence, the architecture focussed on the residential districts of modern cities.
The business centre persists in the north of the residential quarter. It consists of 14 Cartesian
skyscrapers which are 400 meters high. These tower blocks offer about 3200 places of employment. As
mentioned before, ―Ville Radieuse‖ is entitled to offer a standardized surface of 14 square-meters to
every dweller. One apartment building, which is also built in a standardized way and accomplishes a
height of 50 meters, shelters 2700 occupants. Hereby, one-storey residential units are stockpiled as
tight and competitive complexes. Several supplies of services, recreational facilities and shops are
installed within the apartment building. Additionally, every apartment building includes a service of
maintenance, where meals are prepared or purifications are done. As a result, the dwellers can utilize
their leisure time more efficient, including walking through the wide-opened gardens or relaxing on top
of the blocks of flats. Educational establishments are integrated in the apartment buildings. The
children are taught by appropriate employees, here. In order to avoid superfetation, time of productive
work averages merely five hours. Therefore, these constructions are nearly autarkical. Furthermore,
they create an image of Le Corbusier‘s idea of social collectivization. Regarding his visions of
apartment buildings, Le Corbusier was inspired by both, several perambulations of social housing
projects in Moscow between 1928 and 1930 and blueprints of coeval luxury liners. His blocks of flats
were affected by the idea of the concentration and the feed of thousands of passengers. In order to
analyze the lateral cut of his apartment building, Le Corbusier even applied the cross-section of luxury
liners.
Le Corbusier was a castigator of the contemporary traffic concept. The architect was especially
dissatisfied with so-called ―hallway streets‖. In order to solve this problem and to create a certain
diversification within the residential district, the apartment buildings were connected with each other in
a very complicated way. Hereby, so-called ―tooth-cut forms‖ were installed. Such profiles were already
utilized in Le Corbusier‘s ―Ville Contemporaire‖.
The buildings are planned on top of stilts. They are constructed on pillars coming from
basement floor up to the intermediate storey, which harbours social facilities. The construction above
consists of a light steel framework. As a result, the face of the building becomes an object d‘art without
any statically value. The building ought to be protected by the facade like a kind of skin. Its advantage
seems to be its global utilization because of not depending on climatic conditions. The glass front could
be finalized by the facade. Otherwise it is possible to be put behind balconies with a bulge from one
meter up to two and a half meters.
In comparison to former publications by Le Corbusier, gardens receive a more artistic
significance. By the means of several schemata due to the green city concept, the architect
demonstrates the contrast between his idea of town construction and the maps of contemporary
metropolises like New York City or Buenos Aires. Hence, so-called ―stilt houses‖ seems to be a
constructional advantage. As a result, the city‘s superstruct surface diminishes to twelve percent, while
88 percent of the available square is reserved for pedestrians. Gardens should be built up of
multitudinous plazas and pulsating paths. Because of being installed right next to the apartment
buildings, educational establishments, sports facilities and parking areas are important parts of the
garden. Thus, the city becomes a garden city - as it was evaluated in ―Ville Contemporaire‖, too. ―Ville
Radieuse‖ incarnates the ―Green City Concept‖.
Furthermore, the overall traffic is guided offside. Le Corbusier planned to install elevated guide
ways, which are at least five meters above the ground. Therefore, there are no streets next to the
apartment buildings. Accursed ―hallway streets‖ are dismissed. In order to park the vehicles, the
architect planned basement garages, which are arranged directly underneath the blocks of flats. The
blueprints of transportations systems are also new. The underground railway and trucks run on
motorways separated from the ordinary elevated guide ways. Due to the multifunctional alignment of
the several districts, these new transportation systems are quicker, more economical and more efficient
than the traditional traffic infrastructure.
―Ville Radieuse‖ modifies the idea of ―city-as-body‖. Henceforth, its districts are planned
multicellular. It signifies the further development coming from a fixed, quasi-academically, perspective
panorama up to an opened, process-orientated concept of town construction. Doubtless, Le Corbusier‘s
proposals attract the attention of contemporary urban planners, but also of theoreticians of society. De
facto, Le Corbusier gathered a utopia rather than a concept of urban development. The architect tried to
assemble a synthesis of architecture, aesthetics and Syndicalism imagination of an ideal society.
Against the background of this idea, ―Ville Radieuse‖ should be the widespread method of resolution.
Nevertheless, Le Corbusier‘s concept possesses three substantial scarcities:
1st The architect overvalued the effective influence of town construction. From a nowadays point of
view, academicals agree, that so-called ―natural hierarchies‖ - the classless society - are not affected by
neither plain geometry nor functional separation of districts. Thus, a harmonically life is not
guaranteed.
2nd Le Corbusier‘s concept is considered itself to be exposed to a social dilemma. Thereby,
liberal and human aspects are in incongruous opposition to authoritarian and anti-democratically
characteristics. Therefore, the architect‘s theories were boisterously discussed, too.
 IMPLICATIONS OF URBAN PLANNING TO ARCHITECTURAL
PRACTICE

OVERVIEW OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING THEORIES AND ISSUES

IMPLICATION TO ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES

Petric Geddes – the founder of modern town and regional planning. The theoretical ideas of Petric
Geddes have influenced much subsequent planning practice, regional economic development and
environmental
management . In particular his focus on the triad ‗Place-Work-Folk‘ is fundamental to land use
planning.
Urban Planning – is a technique and method of development that contributes to the organization,
development and evolution of urban areas and their urbanising environs, based on economic, social,
legal and aesthetic concepts and conditions in order to promote the welfare of public and quality of
environment.
Urban Planning Basics
Goal of Planning - to guide the development of a city or town so that it furthers the welfare of its
current and future residents by creating convenient, equitable, healthful, efficient and attractive
environments.
Three key aspects of Urban/City Planning:
 Physical environment - A city's physical environment includes its location, its climate and its
proximity to sources of food and water.
 Social environment - The social environment includes the groups to which a city's residents belong,
the neighborhoods in which they live, the organization of its workplaces. One of the biggest issues in
most cities is the inequitable distribution of resources.
 Economic environment - Primary employers, such as manufacturing as well as research and
development companies, retail businesses, universities, federal labs, local government, cultural
institutions, and departments of tourism all play strong roles in a city's economy.
Regional Planning - It is a specific type of planning, based on a specific planning structure (regional
system), for inducing public action aimed at societal well-being. It implies that regional planning is
concerned fundamentally with the society in the context of space.
THEORIES OF EXPLAINING THE EMERGENCE OF TOWNS:

1. Central Place Theory

Developed by the German geographer Walter Christaller in 1933 .It explains the reasons behind the
distribution patterns, size, and number of cities and towns. Examples. Polders of the Netherlands, the
Fens of East Anglia in the UK
Basic elements of Central Place Theory are:
 A central good
 A central place
 A complimentary region Assumptions
 humans will always purchase goods from the closest place
 unbounded isotropic (all flat), homogeneous, limitless surface
 evenly distributed population
 all settlements are equidistant and exist in a triangular lattice pattern
 evenly distributed resources

2. Public Choice Theory

Advanced by Paul Peterson in his 1981 book, City Limits .States that urban politicians and governing
regimes are subordinate to the overall economic principles that force cities to compete to capture new
investment and capital. The competitive nature of cities encourages the business elite and politicians to
favour new development.

3. Bid Rent Theory

Geographical economic theory that refers to how the price and demand for real estate change as the
distance from the central business district (CBD) .This is based upon the idea that retail
establishments wish to maximize their profitability, so they are much more willing to pay more for land
close to the CBD and less for land further away from this area. The amount they are willing to pay is
called "bid rent".

THEORIES OF EXPLAINING HOW TOWNS ARE ARRANGED:

1. Grid model/Hippodamian plan

Proposed by Hippodamus of Miletus who is considered the father of rational city planning. The center
of the city contains the agora (Market place), theaters, and temples. Private rooms surround the city‘s
public arenas. The plan can be laid out uniformly over any kind of terrain since it‘s based on angles and
measurements. Examples; The city of Priene.

2. Concentric Zone model

Also known as The Burgess Model, The Bull's Eye Model.Developed in the 1920's by the urban
sociologist Ernest Burgess. The model portrays how cities social groups are spatially arranged in a
series of rings. The size of the rings may vary, but the order always remains the same.

3. Multiple Nuclei method

The Multiple Nuclei Model is an ecological model created by Chauncy Harris and Edward Ullman in
the 1945. City grows from several independent points rather than from one central business district. As
these expand, they merge to form a single urban area. Ports, universities, airports and parks also act as
nodes. Based on the idea that people have greater movement due to increased car ownership.

4. Urban Realms Model

Developed by James E. Vance Jr. in the 1960‘s. Each realm is a separate economic, social and political
entity that is linked together to form a larger metro framework.suburbs are within the sphere of
influence of the central city and its metropolitan CBD. Now urban realms have become, so large they
even have exurbs, not just suburbs.
5. Core frame model
The Core frame model is a model showing the urban structure of the Central Business District of a
town or city. The model includes an inner core where land is expensive and used intensively. The outer
core and frame have lower land values and are less intensively developed. The various land uses are
linked to the bid rent theory.

6. Irregular pattern model

Arrangement of Public space that characterizes the stage of "Transition from village to city" especially
in Third World. This urban model is due to lack of planning or construction and illegal without a
specific order. Includes blocks with no fixed order, or permanent and temporary structures. Structures
are not related to an urban centres near the place.
Bibliography

Borcelis, N. O. (n.d.). The Urban and Regional Planning Theories and Issues: Implications to
Architectural Practice. Retrieved from Prezi: https://prezi.com/p/50-nheyrvffr/the-urban-and-
regional-planning-theories-and-issues-implications-to-architectural-practice/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Theories of urban planning. Retrieved from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_urban_planning
Wojtowicz, R. (n.d.). H-Net. Retrieved from The Culture of Cities: https://www.h-
net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2666
OVERVIEW OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING THEORIES AND. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://media.oiipdf.com/pdf/346d4483-c61e-4399-918b-89e2961c6f96.pdf
Wangchuk, T. (n.d.). Clarence A Perry’s concept of a Neighborhood Unit. Retrieved from Planning
Tank: https://planningtank.com/planning-theory/clarence-a-perrys-neighborhood-unit
Lawhon, L. L. (n.d.). Neighborhood Unit. Retrieved from Springer:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3335
CDL. (n.d.). Urban Design Theory, European Style. Retrieved from California Digital Library:
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5k4006v5&chunk.id=d0e307&brand=
ucpress&fbclid=IwAR0ColcMA4FVt0AX3aLwSRvaVYydNcrsQesobQpYJhMQnbsUQr1phFt
oxh0