Krierarticle

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233705419
Leon Krier and the organic revival within urban policy and practice
Article in Planning Perspectives · April 1998

DOI: 10.1080/026654398364518
CITATIONS READS
33 5,165
1 author:
Michelle Thompson-Fawcett
University of Otago
61 PUBLICATIONS 583 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sustainability Assessment and Mauri in International Contexts View project
Exploring the multifaceted ancestral landscape View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Michelle Thompson-Fawcett on 17 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Planning Perspectives, 13 (1998) 167–194
Leon Krier and the organic revival within urban

policy and practice
M I C H E L L E T H O M P S O N - F AW C E T T
School of Geography, University of Oxford, Manseld Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK
Contemporary changes in strategies for dealing with the form and design of urban areas have origins
which deserve excavation. The popularization of the notion of creating quality, compact towns and
cities is a case in point. Using the work of Leon Krier as a case study, this paper outlines the background
to a particular version of the organic metaphorical discourse which is winning some favour within
current debate and policy making for urban areas. The argument developed in the paper is that the
apparent innocence of any urbanization policy needs to be reconsidered by unravelling the intertwined
connections between theorists’ ideologies and explanatory practice, the consequent permeations into
planning discourse, and the adaptations by city creators into normative strategies.
Introduction
The proliferation of international environmental debate and its repercussions for urban
form and quality has brought a renewed interest in the use of organic metaphors for the
city (that is, viewing the city as a body or organism). Employed by several urban theorists
(for example, Yanarella and Levine [1], Krier [2–5], Girardet [6], Bolt [7, 8]), these
metaphors have served both as a device for deciphering the intrinsic nature of cities and as
a normative reaction against apparent hypertrophy (unlimited expansion) of urban growth.
Metaphor plays a crucial part in revelation and cognisance within any science (and in
fact in everyday life). It is one mechanism that enables intellectual shifts, courtesy of an
exchange between the familiar and the unfamiliar. The use of metaphors is claimed to be an
essential part of cognitive change, integrally tied to human problem solving and systems of
meaning [9]. It is indicative of both the cognitive and creative scope of the sciences.
Furthermore, such ‘rhetorical devices are central to conveying meaning’ [10]. More
fundamentally, metaphors are conceived ‘as a creative intervention in making truth’ [11].
Hence, in analysing the importance of metaphors it is not sufcient to focus exclusively on
cognitive gains. It is also desirable to explore the metaphorical rhetoric that theorists devise
to persuade and gain authority with their audiences; and to trace the alliances that any
current metaphor use has with particular power groups, along with its inherent
Michelle Thompson-Fawcett has practised urban and regional planning in New Zealand local government for ten
years. She studied planning and geography at the University of Auckland in the early 1980s. At present she is
undertaking doctoral research at the School of Geography, University of Oxford, into the British urban village
campaign and related developments.
# 1998 E & FN Spon 0266-5433

168 Thompson-Fawcett
implications for social relations. I attempt to take up this challenge in the following study
of a specic application of the organic metaphor.
This paper commences by briey introducing the contemporary organic metaphor. It then
highlights the ways in which current urban theorists, in particular Leon Krier, are using this
notion to construct meanings. It seeks to indicate the manner by which this particular
conceptualization is now inuencing the ow of ideas on urbanization in specic circles.
The paper also addresses the question of how theorists’ visions for the city are integral in
inuencing their deciphering of the city; elaborating on the intertwined nature of ideology,
metaphor and associated programmes of action. Resultant urban landscapes are signifying
systems which are by no means innocent or natural. Hence there is a need to denaturalize,
demystify, repoliticize and rehistoricize these systems [12]. This paper therefore seeks to
consider connections between certain explanatory practices and normative strategies.
The organic metaphor
The organic metaphor in its broadest sense is commonly recognised as one of the most
signicant and persistent ‘big’ [13] or ‘root’ [14] metaphors in intellectual enterprise
[15, 16]. This metaphor has been used in ‘explanation’ since classical times [17] and has
been ‘repeatedly rearticulated in new ways’ [18]. With an irreducible metaphor such as the
organic metaphor, there are always fresh connections, creative extensions and new turns
that can be made, often stimulated by other disciplines that are espousing different versions
of the metaphor [19]. Needless to say, employment of this metaphor has waxed and waned
with the particular powers, values and conditions of the time. The fundamental aims of the
metaphor (whatever variation) are directed towards an integrated understanding of the
world by building up separate elements into a connected whole; as opposed to detailed
examination of the elements themselves [20]. This ability to demonstrate organizational and
functional relationships between discrete and perhaps seemingly unrelated elements has
been deemed useful as a partial explanation of the complexity of human and physical
interactions [21]. The synthetic and idiographic nature of the organic metaphor is its most
favoured attribute.
In the spatial sciences, the organic metaphor has had considerable popularity, from its
prominence in the work of founding academics in the nineteenth century [22] (inspired
initially via Darwinian thinking) through to its spasmodic episodes in the twentieth century,
albeit not without dissent [23]. Stoddart [24] argued that organic concepts have been one
mechanism for overcoming methodological problems related to human– environment and
human –physical dualisms, as well as a means to a coherent framework for organizing data.
Linking back to Aristotelian origins, a particular rapport between the organic metaphor
and the city has been prominent within urban theory. In the case of the latter, its
applications have varied, from matters of human adaptation to new surroundings [25]; to
the design basis of new settlements [26, 27]. However, the limitations of the organicist
metaphor and its lack of assistance in analytical praxis [28], led to diminishing popularity
[29]. Buttimer suggests it is more usefully ‘understood as a metaphorical appeal for a global
world-view rather than as a set of guidelines for systematic analysis or a rational
explanation of reality’ [30]. By 1939, Stoddart [31] suggests, the organic metaphor had all
Leon Krier and the organic revival 169
but disappeared from the spatial sciences in conjunction with its demise in biology,
philosophy and political geography. It surfaced again in the 1960s and was used in the
conception of centralized urban communications systems [32], followed later that decade
by its further exploration in response to heightened environmental debate [33].
In the late 1980s and 1990s, organic metaphors have once again harnessed power over
the imagination of some urban thinkers in their theoretical comprehension of urban form,
whether or not their theories are empirically sound. In the last decade there has been a
resurgence in theorization of historic urban forms with an eye to normative applications for
urban management. This has been concomitant with the renewed articulation of the
organic metaphor in relation to the city. The particular conguration of the metaphor
pursued in this paper has been reinvigorated primarily through adaptation into current
debates surrounding the sustainability and aesthetics of urban form. A small number of
urban theorists from a variety of disciplines and locations have been actively remoulding
the metaphor in terms of their interpretations of sustainability and aesthetics.
Recent adaptations of organicism
While British land use planning over the last three decades has been cautious about grand
scale schemes, the recent prominence of sustainability debates has once again brought
broad questions of urban form and settlement patterns to the fore. Most commentators
seem to agree that there may be an important link between urban form and the potential
for the achievement of (albeit ill-dened) sustainability [34]. Lovelock’s [35] concept of
Gaia reects this recent consciousness of sustainability and the interrelatedness of
multitudes of processes involved in supporting the planet; a concept overtly based on the
metaphor of the Earth as organism. A popular urban response has been the promotion of
the notion of a compact city, and variations based on interconnected concentrated nodes of
development. This is an alternative depicted as more organic, and hence inherently
sustainable, than existing urbanization.
Similarly, an equally strong mission has developed related to achieving quality in the
urban environment in terms of the aesthetics of urban design. This has been commensurate
with current changes in aesthetic theory. Until recently intellectual conceptions of aesthetics
have been conned to the study of beauty [36]. However, several authors have now begun
to rescue older and broader notions of the concept as a means of reintegrating aesthetic
concerns back into ordinary life and design practice [37]. Punter and Carmona characterize
the changes in the last few years as demonstrating ‘a shift from a focus on design as
‘‘external appearance’’ and townscape, to a concern with the public realm and public
space, and on to a concern with the public perceptions and experience of buildings and
spaces’ and most recently a focus on ‘the ecological dimension’ [38].
The organic metaphor has been recovered by a number of theorists as a useful way of
demonstrating the existing exemplars of the aesthetic, contained city and of expressing the
change of direction warranted by other ‘deviant’ cities. The work of urban theorists as
diverse in position as Christopher Alexander and Frank Gehry has added weight to the
metaphor’s use [39].
By way of example, following their examination of the medieval Italian hilltown,
Yanarella and Levine [40] deemed this urban form a forerunner of the sustainable city.
Subsequently they set out to synthesize the hilltown design with current principles for social
and ecological sustainability. Their approach is based on an organic conception of the city,
and the desirability of a holistic understanding of its operation. They construe sprawling
urban growth as cancerous and endorse instead an historically based alternative of organic
cells (in the form of urban and non-urban villages) which can be constructed as
sustainable village implantations into old and dilapidated sections of today’s megalopolises in order to
inject healthy sustainable tissues into the body politic of these apparently terminal social creatures
[41].
Likewise, in his study of urban growth and containment, Bolt [42, 43] comprehends
human settlements as being like organisms, discrete in form, and multiplying by unit
colonization rather than uniformly low density peripheral extension. He traces the
evolution of urban development from antiquity to recent history. Deriving essential
principles from this research, he then also elaborates on a normative model of organic
urban form management, which he calls the ‘humane development ratio’.
Girardet [44] similarly despairs over the contemporary city in his investigation into new
directions for sustainable urban living:
With their complex metabolisms they are huge organisms without precedent in nature. . .. Can they be
turned into benign organisms? [45]
Cities have been described both as ‘organisms’ and as ‘mechanisms’. Seen as organisms, cities convert
raw materials into products and waste, energizing themselves in the process. The urban organism
seeks to reproduce the living conditions necessary for human survival. Seen as mechanisms, cities seek
to transcend biological limits. They are articial structures depending on transport systems and
factories to function, producing objects alien to the natural world. [46]
Girardet suggests that an organic understanding of the city is necessary for achieving a
circular metabolism – his chief criterion for urban sustainability.
In each of these cases, and that of Krier (below) also, there is a close association between
the use of the organic metaphor to persuade audiences towards sustainable and aesthetic
changes to urban form, and a social utopian belief that the physical models presented will
also assist the generation of a lasting sense of community and community responsibility.
Part of this is related to the theorists’ ideas of democracy and the desirability of ‘social and
political heterogeneity’ [47].
Krier’s use of the organic metaphor
Of all the theorists re-working the organic metaphor within the sustainability and aesthetics
cast, one of the most prominent, with a strong following in Britain, Europe and North
America [48], is Leon Krier. He is also perhaps the most prolic and consistent user of the
organic metaphor. Born in Luxembourg in 1946, Krier’s career has been principally
stimulated by the effects of post-war development on Europe’s historic towns. He is renown
for his passionate critique of what he interprets as the intolerable drudgery of
contemporary cities and civilization at large, arguing that both are in great difculty, if not
at the point of death. Needless to say, Porphyrios describes him as ‘a born polemicist’ [49].
Whereas, perhaps, the majority of academics express their metaphorical arguments in
terms of epistemology or methodology, in reality the issues of personal ideology, aesthetics,
emotion, fancy, and cultural and social values, inter alia, are clearly intermingled with
scholarly explanation [50]. Urban theorist Leon Krier is candid in regard to the latter
inuences on his interpretations. In order to discover the ramications of the theories of
Krier, particularly his use of the organic metaphor in relation to urban form, it is therefore
helpful to place his work within the context of the interests, listeners and experience that
inspired him. In this review of his work I commence by outlining his personal background
and his intellectual position. Then I continue by reecting on his analysis of the growth and
spatial form of urban areas, and his evangelistic purpose.
Krier’s understanding of the city has been strongly inuenced by, amongst other things,
his distress over his Luxembourg homeland. He describes a ‘devastation’ and ‘rape’ of his
‘beautiful birthplace’ [51]. Krier attributes this to 30 years of inadequate planning,
fragmentary land speculation, inappropriate experimentation with form and space, and
construction of unconventional building types. This experience, and to a lesser extent, that
in Belsize Park, London and Claviers, Provence, has been one of the independently-minded
small ‘town’. Hence he maintains a meritorious concern to defend and endorse identiable
communities. There is little room in these places for ‘the world of heavy industry, of the oil
rich, of the stock exchange and of multi-national corporations’, institutions which have all
but destroyed the spirit of the canton type systems he supports [52].
Normally the market . . . – and that is what shapes the development – addresses only enormous sizes
of land and very large sizes of single uses. That sort of policy shapes the economy and this economy
cannot produce the small scale or family based scale. . .. In the end you have the titans, the Sainsburys
against the Tescos. . .. I’m not at all against those sort of operations. Civilised society has space for all
sizes of entrepreneurs and intelligences. But the impoverishing thing is that what we know as the
modern economy is essentially an extremely large scale warfare of large economic units who battle
and plough through the grounds in cities, destroying established patterns. If these small scale patterns
are not maintained the large scale patterns are going to die too, because . . . as you see in really large
scale damaged American cities, they just kill each other off. In the end they move out of there because
they impoverished everything so much that towns are left like refuse [53].
This disintegration of the city – its patterns and its public realm – that Krier depicts has
led him to battle resolutely for the ‘reconstruction’ of the city. The key to this retrieval
ultimately being the size and mix of components,
The whole idea is to have a great mix of sizes of plots as neighbours, and a great mix of uses as
neighbours. If one does that well, they create beautiful places, if one does it moderately well, they
create decent places, if one does it very badly, they still create places, they are not good, but they still
make places. So it’s a system which you can’t go completely wrong with [54].
Intellectually, Krier’s contemplations on these matters have been most directly inuenced
by Camillo Sitte [55]. The manner in which Sitte was able to theorize space (as opposed to
physical structures) in a natural way impressed Krier. The loss of a regard for this space,
and subsequently the loss of the space itself in contemporary city building, has been a
major spur to Krier’s own theorizing on twentieth century cities. In particular, he argues
that the public realm is now almost a ctional entity. In Krier’s opinion, the way that
buildings and spaces relate to each other in patterns, which he surmises helps maintain
communities, is a knowledge that city builders cannot afford to lose. Accordingly, like Sitte,
Krier prioritizes the order of the whole above that of its parts, the former giving meaning to
the latter. Buildings and spaces arise from towns, not towns from buildings. This naturally
sits very easily with a synthetic organic conceptualization of the city.
Krier has been branded with various incongruous labels, such as postmodernist
[56, 57, 58], neo-rationalist [59], classical revivalist [60], and humanist [61]. Traditionalist
is the descriptor he uses of himself. He sees his traditionalism as
an extremely articulate language which has both a vernacular and a monumental language; it varies
from region to region, yet it [is] also . . . international. [It has a] vast inventory of forms . . . it cannot
be put down to one style or one period, but it’s an inventory which is constantly developing [and] is
not limited to [the] historic. . .. The largest element in language, in any form of communication . . . is
in transcendence, a system which transcends times, regions, which is a universal language and which
is related to the conditions of nature and to the embodiment of the human congregation. . .. If one
could reinvent language, language would be reinvented every generation. But there is no reinvention
of language. There’s integration of new elements, of new words which come about with new uses.
[62]
Krier’s study of the city accordingly reveals his advocacy of a notion of historical and
cultural continuity. Urban design is therefore perceived as a vehicle of cultural memory, and
this memory is activated in the construction of the city. Inherent in this is a ‘genetic
connotation’ [63], whereby contemporary city building always recalls elements from
antecedent periods, even though they may be signicantly reinterpreted. Consequently,
Krier rejects Modern architecture, and attempts to place himself outside its culture, while at
the same time avoiding postmodern clichés [64]. Krier maintains a ‘remoteness from
current secular and materialist values’, refusing ‘to accept any of the basic premises of the
modern industrial state and its consumer-oriented mentality’ [65].
Krier’s comparative examination of the origin and history of cities, European cities in
particular, is rationalist in approach. He is seeking out the foundations of the city.
Robertson [66] suggests that in contemplating Krier’s work ‘one thinks of the city, in all its
many histories and forms. Medieval, classical, humble and grand. No one in modern times
has written and drawn such a tribute to the mythology of Western urban values’. The
outcome of this detailed research is his determination that there are common principles of
disegno and misura in these cities. From this he develops his normative response. Rather
than a utopian model, he elaborates a paradigm or exemplar, free of any potential for
copying or cloning. He does this by displaying the European city’s fundamental disegno
(but it is a design and form that is not intended to exist itself except by approximations),
and by presenting its misura (to establish the basic dimensions and proportions of urban
areas).
The organic–mechanical dualism has been a tension in much academic thinking since its
popularization in the seventeenth century [67]. Krier reiterates it in his delineation of two
basic forms of urban development and growth that he derives from his examination of
cities in Europe and North America. One he represents as a mechanistic form of growth
based on the continual hypertrophy of a single urban entity (Fig. 1). In Krier’s analysis, a
Figure 1. Forms of growth: duplication versus hypertrophy (drawing courtesy of Leon Krier).
city experiencing this kind of growth has had its basic form dramatically changed in the
last 45 years. The urban centre has over-expanded in a vertical direction (high rise, high
density development), and the urban periphery has over-expanded in a horizontal direction
(single storey, suburban development). He designates this an ‘anti-city’, comprised of zones
which segregate urban activities leaving mono-functional groupings of housing, commerce,
industry, services, civic administration and cultural activities (Fig. 2). He describes this as a
mechanical fragmentation of urban functions which were previously organically integrated.
The imperatives of this zoning mean that people are able to perform only one task in any
location and consequently need to be highly mobile to carry out even simple daily activities.
Consequently, signicant amounts of time, energy and infrastructure are required for all
urban functions. Krier reasons that such a development pattern is not neutral. Rather it
operates ‘to destroy the innitely complex cultural and economic fabric of urban culture
and democracy’ [68].
The second form of urban growth he characterizes as organic, based on urbanization via
the duplication of semi-autonomous urban quarters. In his writing and drawing he
concentrates his efforts on this latter form rather than the mechanistic (and this paper will
do likewise).
Large scale metropolitan . . . [areas are] really something [for] which I don’t think a theory is
needed. . .. You need rather to theorise the small city . . . because the large city happens anyway. You
need rather theories of how to prevent metropolitanisation [69].
Figure 2. Growth of integrated communities versus monofunctional zones (drawing courtesy of Leon
Krier).
In his depiction of the organic city, Krier is strongly inuenced by Aristotle, both in his
line of argument and in his use of the metaphor. Aristotle was an early and prominent user
of organicism in the context of the city. Like the growth and development of any living
organism, so Aristotle perceived the growth and development of cities. In a normative sense
both favour a city which is limited in extent. The organic urban area displays an adherence
to a dened spatial dimension and population size.
If you analyse settlements all over the world, and throughout the ages, they were limited, they were
always limited, . . . and you always have codes to limit, which are to do with practicality [70].
. . . a city must be a nite object . . . [71]

. . . the right form of the city exists only in the right scale. . .. Like a tree or a man, a human
community cannot exceed a certain dimension without becoming a monster. . .. [T]he vitality of a
community overdevelops or atrophies according to the number of its inhabitants: a city can die by an
abnormal expansion, density or dispersion. . .. The free and harmonious growth of an urban
civilisation cannot be accomplished except by the right and judicious geographical distribution of its
cities and communities, autonomous and nite. [72]
Not only does Krier adopt a general organic metaphor for the city, but he also develops
an analogy linked to Aristotle’s notion of the city being derived from the family (Fig. 3).
. . . just as a family does not grow through the obese swelling of the parents’ bodies but through the
birth of children, so an urban civilisation cannot with impunity grow by the exaggerated expansion of
human agglomerations. [73]
In Krier’s assessment, the historic reasoning for a size limitation relates to systems of
governance. Again, inuenced by Aristotle, Krier maintains that real democracy (clearly his
preference) only exists at the scale of the town. Construction of cities, for example, should
be undertaken democratically at the town level, where the values and intentions of the
builders are made explicit and can be debated.
The building block for city growth, that Krier sees demonstrated in such cities as
Florence, Paris, Munich and Luxembourg, is the ‘urban quarter’, a relatively self-sufcient,
multi-functional ‘city within a city’ (Fig. 4). Krier’s vision is for any city or polypolis (the
latter being Krier’s favoured terminology, indicating a multi-centred urban form) to
Figure 3. Family growth (drawing courtesy of Leon Krier).

Figure 4. Functional zones versus urban quarters (drawing courtesy of Leon Krier).
comprise a federation of these autonomous quarters. As a part of the city, the urban
quarter ‘contains the features and qualities of the whole. It is a full and mature member of
the family of quarters’, with a high degree of self-sufciency, providing for all daily and
weekly local functions (education, shopping, commerce, leisure, administration, housing,
culture) within walking distance [74]. Each quarter has a centre, periphery and clear
boundary. Krier argues that with the urban quarter as the basis for urban growth
management, you have a viable opponent to the zoned anti-city,
The metropolis in itself is much more of a threat than a blessing on every level. But you can’t stop the
metropolis. The metropolis can only be diverted by developing regions; by having superior
competitors; so polycentric competition of a superior kind. [75]
In delivering these urban quarters, Krier suggests that a precondition for the successful
integration of the communities and their respective buildings and spaces is a masterplan.
His ideal masterplan consists of four elements. The overall masterplan conception, which
denes the location, size and shape of each quarter in the scheme; and urban, architectural
and public spaces codes, which establish the more detailed ground plan. The codes are not
intended to modify a property dweller’s preferences, but to emphasize quality construction
and raise people’s sights.
Krier’s purpose then, clearly extends beyond theoretical discourse. Effectively he operates
an evangelistic campaign, initially aimed at theorists, practitioners and decision-makers, but
ultimately at the public at large. Rowe [76] dubs Krier ‘a master of publicity’ – in no small
measure aided by his lack of reservation, constant reiteration, single-minded dedication and
‘apparent inexibility of disposition’. The organic metaphor is a crucial part of this
crusade. It helps Krier to present a lucid simplication of his main argument in a
stimulating and provocative way – essential elements in any attempt to win over the
majority.
Inuence on policy and practice
Theoretical notions are powerful mechanisms for actually creating the world as opposed to
simply reecting it [77]. Urban models such as Krier’s polynodal cities, may strongly mirror
the reasoning of the organic metaphor, as opposed to closely conforming to what exists on
the ground. However, Krier’s metaphorical discourse makes a particular world visible in an
attempt to reinforce in his audience his own vision for the world. Popular adoption of such
theoretical insights can result in the latter signicantly inuencing our understanding of the
city and hence strategies for it. Any understanding of the city is very much derived from the
concepts available within the discourse in which we are operating (see Harré and Gillett
[78]). For example, permeation of Krier’s ideas within urban planning discourse can
consequently have a profound inuence on the way planners and creators unravel and
envisage cities. The metaphor and related decipherings hence slide into normality; they
become the reality for their proponents. Such understandings of space become part of
policy makers’ and city builders’ power over the city, its form, its construction.
The organic metaphor – courtesy of its role in urban management discourse based on
ideas of sustainable, compact, self-contained, quality development – has been very
inuential in public body circles within Britain and the USA for example, and also at the
wider regional level of the European Community (most prominently indicated in the 1990
Green Paper on the Urban Environment, prepared by the Commission of the European
Communities). Numerous academics and commentators have had a part to play in the shift
of policy and practice that is now taking place. In this instance, I wish to briey outline
some of the links that can be made between the work of Leon Krier and these changes.
KRIER AND THE URBAN VILLAGES GROUP
In Britain, Krier was a crucial foundation member of the Urban Villages Group, set up in
1989 as a result of a challenge from the Prince of Wales. The twofold purpose of the group
has been to establish criteria for the creation of liveable urban environments and to assist in
bringing about such urbanization. As the principal theoretician present on this body that
was initially dominated by developers and house builders, Krier provided the conceptual
basis for the model promoted by the group. The group met very regularly, often weekly, for
the rst two years to develop their strategy, during which time Krier was a vital participant.
His role in framing the principles and policy as outlined in their inaugural campaign
publication in June 1992 was a pivotal one. The technical aspects of the text were drawn
directly from work prepared for the group by Krier. The urban village concept is a British
adaptation of Krier’s notion of organic, polynodal cities comprising autonomous urban
quarters:
An urban village is a human-scale, compact, mixed land use, mixed tenure neighbourhood within a
wider urban area, with diverse open spaces, minimal car dependency, and relative self-sufciency in
terms of the residents’ needs for employment, shopping, recreation and community activity. A crucial
issue in spatial management terms is the intention for these villages to be established in a strategic
nodal pattern (i.e. a poly-centric grouping of villages), related to public transit systems and to the
location of existing infrastructure. . .. The principal function of the strategy is to deliver a diverse,
liveable, efcient and sustainable urban settlement of human-scale that allows for organic
development. [79]
In keeping with Krier, the Urban Villages Group suggest that the details of layout, design
and subsequent management should be explicitly regulated via four codes, covering
infrastructure, urban form, architecture and public spaces. The group provides a broad
description of what each of those codes might elaborate on, from standard of road
construction and size of street blocks to shape of roofs and design of street furniture. The
codes are seen as essential for maintaining the integrity of any urban village.
The Urban Villages Group has been extremely successful in obtaining the ongoing
support of the Department of the Environment for its campaign. The latter is currently
funding a three year programme run by the Urban Villages Group. The programme largely
consists of a series of awareness raising seminars, promoting the urban village concept to
local planning authorities, quangos and the building industry. In addition, the Department
of the Environment incorporated the work of the Urban Villages Group, and of Krier
himself, as positive examples in their Quality in Town and Country campaign. But perhaps
the most important outcome of the liaison between the Urban Villages Group and the
Department of the Environment has been the inclusion of the urban village model within
the government’s planning policy guidance notes, PPG1. The notes add signicant weight to
the urban village campaign. They require local authorities to consider the applicability of
urban villages in the preparation of their development plans. An entire paragraph of the
notes is devoted to the urban village and the multiple ways in which this concept can be
delivered within the existing planning system. The denition of an urban village used is
based directly on one prepared by the Urban Villages Group for the Department of the
Environment. The notes suggest that local authorities should evaluate whether urban
villages are appropriate for their jurisdictions both on large sites within urban areas and on
an amalgamation of smaller sites, incorporating existing development, but also within
existing areas of poor quality residential development.
In addition to this liaison with a government body, a joint initiative between English
Partnerships and the Urban Villages Group was launched in February 1997 to promote
urban village-like mixed development projects across England. At least £50 million is being
made available to assist suitable schemes over the next four years.
Currently there are more than 30 projects on the drawing board or under construction in
Britain claiming either to be urban villages or to incorporate a signicant number of urban
village characteristics. Those involved in the urban village movement have made a
considerable effort to establish a wide membership base amongst town builders and
planners in order to achieve this shift in attitude towards contemporary urbanization. The
results on the ground would seem to indicate that the Urban Villages Group has
successfully captured the ear of policy writers and developers alike in Britain.
KRIER AND THE CONGRESS FOR THE NEW URBANISM
Similarly, in the USA, Krier has signicant inuence with a national body known as the
Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). Krier claims credit for the idea of the movement,
stating that he wanted to form a new and antithetic group to the modernist CIAM
(Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne). He took the matter up with his close
American associate Andres Duany (Duany identies Krier as one of his most important
mentors). The pair set out to acquire nancial backing for the idea. They won over an
investor, by the name of Weston, based in Toronto. Weston had previously commissioned
Duany to prepare the masterplan and code for the new town of Windsor in Florida (a
traditional neighbourhood development which Krier describes as ‘fantastic’, ‘very beautiful’
and ‘Duany’s best scheme’ [80]). The rst CNU session was in October 1993 and Weston
agreed to fund it. At this meeting it was hoped that an alternative planning movement to
the CIAM would be formally launched. Four CNU sessions later the movement is well
established and growing. Krier continues to participate vigorously in its work, and the key
members overtly acknowledge the strong inuence of his urban principles on the group
[81]. The growing literature from CNU members largely presents rational guidebooks for
planning and designing in an urbanist, and usually traditional, manner. Such works
highlight the considerable success CNU members have had on the ground, constructing and
reconstructing urban areas, such as Kentlands, Maryland; Blount Springs, Alabama;
Northwest Landing, Washington; East Sunnyside, Oregon, and many more. The
movement’s regional strategy is also being implemented in a number of territorial authority
areas, such as Seattle, Portland and Toronto. Furthermore, they have made substantial in-
roads into federal policy, particularly via publications and planning guidelines prepared for
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development. [82]
The main CNU aims are to promote clearly bounded developments organized in
compact, mixed use, walkable, identiable neighbourhoods, linked by mass transit. The
neighbourhoods should promote a high level of local democracy and community
responsibility, and be comprised of a diversity of residents, which is promoted by the
provision of a full range of housing types and civic facilities. Recognition should be given
to rening traditional continuities in terms of the urban form and design, often adapting
historical precedents in terms of architectural style. Priority should be given to public spaces
and the public realm in general. Most buildings should be designed to be ‘ordinary’ in
contrast to more formal civic buildings. To assist with this, it is suggested that detailed
design codes should be written to encourage cohesive yet varied construction, with clarity
as to acceptable development and changes in the future. The design code approach enables
multiple architects and designers to participate while preserving the desired character of the
development.
Again, the currency and sway of Krier’s ideas on organic urbanization are demonstrated
through the work of this American group. But while much of Krier’s crusade in the past has
been focused on his drawing, writing and involvement with bodies like the CNU, the Urban
Villages Group and the Movement for the Reconstruction of the European City, his efforts
have branched out signicantly in the last decade.
KRIER AND POUNDBURY
As a nal example, it is worth discussing Krier’s rst ever personal attempt at putting his
theory into practice. With his role as masterplanner for the Poundbury project in West
Dorset he has taken the opportunity to become directly involved in town making.
The Poundbury project, an urban extension for 5000 people, is now three years into
construction. The development is taking place along the western edge of Dorchester on a
158 hectare site owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy is an organization
established to provide an income for the Heir to the Throne and is run by the Prince of
Wales via an administrative staff. The stimulus for the development project was a 1987
study by the West Dorset District Council on various location options for the future
extension of Dorchester. Ultimately, the Poundbury site was chosen as the preferred area for
Dorchester’s growth to occur. Having been approached by the Council, the Duchy
instructed its planning consultants, to prepare a masterplan for the expansion. However,
when presented with their draft masterplan in 1988, the Prince of Wales found its
conventional style to be at odds with his well publicized convictions in relation to urban
development. Poundbury was not going to be simply a suburban housing estate. As an
alternative he requested that Leon Krier be approached and given a blank sheet on which
to prepare a new masterplan. Krier revealed his ambitious conception in early 1989. His
proposals were clearly expensive, and met with resistence from the Duchy ofcials who had
to answer to the Treasury. However, the Prince supported Krier in principle (although
Krier’s rudimentary perspectives of European style buildings for the development were
replaced with drawings more cognisant of the Dorset setting). He saw in Krier’s masterplan
the potential to achieve his aim ‘to show that a rediscovery and restoration of traditional
values and principles with regard to urban design and layout is possible and desirable, and
that it coincides with a largely unconscious desire on the part of so many ‘ordinary’ people’
[83]. Nevertheless, some modication and down-scaling was undertaken by Krier. Then
implementation of the plan commenced.
Krier’s masterplan divides the development into four discrete urban quarters. Each will
have no more than 800 households and will cover an area of no more than 40 hectares (the
latter ensuring only a ten minute walk between the furthest parts of individual quarters).
Each is intended to integrate urban uses, catering for essential community needs, including
education, employment, retail and leisure activities. A key part of this is the mixing of plot
sizes and mixing of uses (Fig. 5). Buildings are designed at an urban density more akin to
Figure 5. Plan of rst phase (adjoining existing housing) of the Poundbury development (drawing
courtesy of Leon Krier).
old Dorchester than the other twentieth century extensions to the town. The development
approach attempts to simulate the simplicity of design yet diversity associated with the
gradual organic development seen in historic Dorset towns and villages, albeit within a
greatly compressed timeframe of 10–15 years. The design scheme incorporates traditional
commons, street patterns, building types and materials. Signicantly, the spaces and
building positions were the rst elements to be designed. Once their locations were agreed
the roads were then tted in around them (Fig. 6). This has often resulted in irregular and
winding streets which naturally encourage slow vehicle movement. The architecture
required is traditional in appearance, providing a continuity link with a variety of local
vernacular styles, such as those present in Roman Dorchester, old Fordington and Cerne
Abbas. Formal building and street features are to be more common on main roads, with
greater simplicity predominating on the back routes. Such symbolism is a conspicuous
feature of the project. Another example is the signicance of chimneys. All houses are
required to have at least one chimney, whether or not it is operational. The symbolic
reasoning for this is that chimneys denote ‘hearth and home’ [84]. Similarly, front doors are
Conventional road and housing pattern
Poundbury housing pattern
Figure 6. Poundbur y layout: based on building location not roading system (drawing courtesy of
Leon Krier)
designed as symbolic gestures of welcome (if open) or privacy (if closed). A building code
specic to the project communicates the creativity, quality and character of development
sought and ensures architects, builders and developers conform to the masterplan.
Krier sees his primary tasks in controlling the implementation of the masterplan as
ensuring the retention of the freely shaped geometry and structure of the public spaces and
street pattern, and maintaining a modest, unied, but slightly varied architectural style [85]
(Fig. 7). His surveillance of the execution of the masterplan is both attentive and tenacious.
In terms of meeting his fundamental objectives, Krier’s assessment of the built outcome to
date is positive. ‘I think it works. I was quite astonished [because] it really feels like it has
been there for a long time, which is amazing’ [86] (Fig. 8).
In the Poundbury development Krier’s organic conceptions are being realized. The project
involves urbanization via the duplication of semi-autonomous urban quarters which are
closely associated to each other. Each of these quarters has been designed to provide a
transcendence of traditional Dorset patterns of spaces and buildings, and of architectural
style. Each is intended to mature into an identiable community that maintains a historical
and cultural continuity within Dorset. This transcendence and continuity has led to cries of
‘pastiche’, ‘toytown’ and ‘theme park’ by critics. However, it is not the urban form and
architecture in themselves which cause the authors concern. The layout, density, scale and
Figure 7. Poundbury street perspective as envisaged by Krier (drawing courtesy of Leon Krier).
Figure 8. Housing as completed in rst phase of Poundbury development.
mix of uses and tenures may have signicant benets in terms of urban utility and comfort
in the Dorchester context (although the architectural style to date is perhaps unnecessarily
busy and conning in its nostalgic tendencies – but that is not intrinsic). More interesting
are the implications of the strict policing introduced to maintain aesthetic standards.
Poundbury has a building code which details requirements in relation to external walls of
buildings, roofs and chimneys, windows and doors, building and subsidiary elements,
gardens, garden walls and fences, accessibility, and environmental targets. While the code
allows a wide range of solutions to its requirements, there are also a large number of
stringent restrictions unheard of in conventional housing estates. For example, skylights are
not permitted; all glass in windows must be colourless; pivot, swivel and picture windows
are prohibited; clothes driers and dustbins are not allowed to be visible from the street;
prefabricated accessory buildings are forbidden, and so on. The extent and nature of these
regulations is such that a degree of conformity, if not homogeneity, is required in the
residents’ psyche. There is a certain community responsibility necessary in order to adhere
to the code. Civilized conduct which pays respect to established basic decencies as per the
code is obligatory. This could mould behaviour in a very specic way as aesthetic standards
are prioritized over individual freedom. It will also inuence the mix of people prepared to
live in Poundbury. The private homeowners make a deliberate choice in favour of the
Poundbury concept when they buy into the development. Any potential purchasers not
prepared to submit to such authority can turn their backs on it. The same cannot be said of
the large number of housing association tenants nominated from the local housing waiting
list to move into Poundbury. How much persuasion the residents’ association will have
over the enforcement of the code in the future is unclear. But at present this code must have
a powerful effect not only over physical outcomes, but also in terms of control over
community composition and demeanour.
Already the urban form and process that Poundbury materializes is being transferred in
morsels to numerous other projects in Dorset (e.g. in Christchurch and West Dorset) and
elsewhere in England (e.g. in Bedfordshire). Furthermore, interest in Poundbury’s potential
as a paradigm for practice elsewhere remains high. Site visits to Poundbury are continual,
both by British groups and those from abroad. Planning, architecture and estate
management students from numerous universities; professional bodies such as the Royal
Town Planning Institute; historic conservation groups such as the Association of Small and
Historic Towns and Villages; and a range of other bodies including the Urban Villages
Forum and the Women’s Institute (not to mention journalists) have all made the pilgrimage
to Poundbury. The query that necessarily arises is whether the type of social order this
particular exemplar engenders actually represents an improvement for urban lifestyles.
Assessment of Krier’s organic metaphor
There are a number of approaches available for assessing metaphor use. In this section
three fundamental questions are asked with the aim of judging the success of Krier’s use of
the organic metaphor. First, how close is the match between the metaphor and
urbanization? Second, how effectively does the metaphor use engage with contemporary
challenges to urban form? Finally, how inuential is the metaphor use in fashioning reality?
METAPHOR AND OBJECT
It is helpful to establish how efcacious the use of Krier’s metaphor is, whether it is
internally consistent and meets basic guides as to appropriate metaphor application. Where
the matter being examined and the metaphor embraced to help clarify it do not
substantially equate then the link made between the two is unapt. In considering this issue,
it is useful to turn to Hesse [87] who provides criteria against which to assess whether a
metaphor successfully identies similarities between what is being investigated and the
metaphorical comparison being provided. These criteria are that similar processes and
characteristics must be demonstrated; that the essential nature of the primary matters being
explained should not be in opposition to any aspects of the metaphor; and that the
relations between the characteristics of the metaphor should also be displayed in the matter
under primary investigation.
At rst glance, it would appear that Krier’s organic metaphor struggles to meet Hesse’s
criteria. If the object of metaphorical comparison is seen as being the contemporary city,
questions can be raised in particular about contradictions between metaphor and object
and about dissimilarities in relationships between characteristics in the metaphor as
compared to the object.
However, in terms of the rst criterion, there are some similarities between the
multiplication of beings and certain patterns of urban settlement. Many pre-industrial
urban settlements and some more recent developments, based on options such as nodal or
satellite settlements, resemble Krier’s polycentric growth. Rather than a continuous
extension of existing centres, growth is directed into multiple, semi-autonomous
developments that are limited in size. To a degree this equates with the idea of population
growth occuring via the reproduction of independent beings as opposed to the hypertrophic
growth of an individual. Furthermore, just as nodal or satellite development may be based
on urban unit groupings within cities or other spatial alliances, so population expansion is
based on groupings within family units. However, this is a similarity in terms of form, not
in terms of the reproduction process itself.
Similarly, Krier’s depiction of an anti-city based on the hypertrophic growth of
monofunctional zones and suburbs has parallels to parasitic growth in biology. In Krier’s
analogy both a parasite and a monofunctional zone or suburb are seen as lacking in self-
reliance and dependent on the entity to which they are attached for basic needs. Just as a
parasite is an organism that fundamentally depends on another in order to stay alive, there
is a case to be made for the claim that a monofunctional zone in a city is reliant on access
to other parts of the city for such things as labour, services and markets because those
functions are not provided within their own district. The match between metaphor and
object is not faultless (even mixed-use urban quarters will inevitably be net absorbers of
resources, not self-contained), but there are similarities. Therefore, insofar as like
characteristics in terms of form can be said to exist in both organic growth and particular
kinds of urbanization, Hesse’s rst criterion has been met.
The second criterion requires that consideration be given to the differences between the
metaphor and urbanization. The key issue is whether crucial aspects of urbanization are
actually negated by the metaphor. The most obvious difference between Krier’s organic
metaphor and urbanization is the process of duplication. This also links in very closely with
Hesse’s third criterion that the relationships between human/organic beings should carry
over to the relationships between the urban units. If there can be said to be urban
duplication in any past or present form of urban growth management it certainly does not
resemble organic ‘reproduction’ in terms of an urban area giving birth to another urban
unit which it then nurtures to maturity within a kindred federation. However, Krier utilizes
the analogy more by way of a normative proposition than a reection of existing

circumstances. The notion of a city intentionally delivering other discrete units with which
it maintains close and nurturing links would be a desirable target as far as Krier is
concerned.
In addition to the process of reproduction, there is also the issue of ‘death’ in Krier’s
analogy. While the danger of morbid obesity to human life expectancy is obvious, the
threat of death to the city presented by hypertrophic growth is questionable. The city
certainly does not seem to literally die in physical terms if it grows in a hypertrophic
fashion. However, such an interpretation depends on what denition of ‘city’ is being used.
The death of the city that Krier talks of is death in terms of his aesthetic, cultural,
landscape, environmental and democratic objectives. These are objectives which cannot be
obtained in a sprawling, monofunctional, zoned metropolis. For Krier, most recent
urbanization has resulted in development that is not urban but suburban. This generates a
place that is neither city nor country, it kills both city and country, replacing them with the
anti-city. In this way, death of the city can be said to have occurred.
Consequently, while there are legitimate doubts over the similarity between the organic
metaphor and contemporary urbanization processes, when Krier’s purpose is taken into
account the dilemma is signicantly diminished. Krier is not solely using the metaphor to
mirror modern urban form, but to deliver an alternative. In terms of Krier’s normative
aspiration, the similarity between organic reproduction and urbanization is close and the
metaphor suits his project well. In fact, those aspects of the analogy where a negative
relationship between the metaphor and object might be expected, are instead some of the
most important features of Krier’s comparison. Therefore, the organic metaphor as
employed by Krier clearly meets all of Hesse’s criteria.
METAPHOR AND CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES
There are a multitude of commentators who argue that many normative applications of
the contemporary organic metaphor to the city fail to engage with the real challenges for
the approaching twenty-rst century city. The validity of utilizing a metaphor of organic
duplication to corroborate a normative model for future urban management has been
questioned. Krier’s purpose in pursuing the metaphor is to demonstrate that historically
this type of growth has been successful economically, socially and environmentally, and
can likewise be chosen for the future. But he makes no explicit acknowledgement of the
elaborate changes that have occurred in the way urban areas now interact and connect at
regional, national and international levels. This is particularly important given his lack of
interest in examining the metropolis – a situation that could lead to accusations of a lack
of awareness of contemporary relationships within and between metropolitan areas. Krier
does not seriously addresses the difculties and obstacles that would be faced in shifting
from monofunctional suburban development to his polycentric urban communities. Even
if considered desirable, could such a transformation actually be achieved? Furthermore,
other powerful factors such as the continuing decentralization of population and
employment may subvert any policies for the reformation of urbanization. Krier’s notion
of community cohesion may be just what ex-urbanites and suburbanites seek to free
themselves from.
The recurrent criticism of Krier is that he misunderstands ‘the complexities, needs, and
contradictions of modern urban culture’ [88]. Porphyrios argues that some who employ a
metaphor of progress chastize the organic approach for its refusal to engage with what they
interpret as progressive strategies:
The adoption of the European City as an urban paradigm [is] a gross setback to the idea of progress.
Traditional . . . forms of urbanisation . . . have in the past proven dangerous setbacks to the economic,
political and cultural progress of civilisation. Tradition . . . fosters an authoritarianism that invariably
sties progress [89].
Diane Suggich (Blueprint magazine) believes that perceiving urban areas as comprising cells
of quarters or villages is ‘a very naive and innocent idea of what a city is’ [90]. Harvey [91]
likewise cautions that this alternative ‘appears more like trying to stop the world and trying
to get off, rather than seeking a genuine panacea for the difculties of contemporary urban
life’. Richard MacCormac (past president RIBA) bases his objection on the networking that
is now an essential part of city and regional life,
I don’t think you can make communities by making physical arrangements and somehow . . . people
are going to start behaving like eighteenth century villagers. . .. Modern societies are networks to do
with employment and schools and so on. And people, even if they live in a housing group that looks
like a community, have these other communities to do with work, to do with where their children go
to school – maybe more specialised communities – which link them with other people they like, in
different parts of the city as a whole [92].
The problem . . . is that the way in which the economics of modern societies work, and the way
employment and retailing, for example, are distributed, are no longer based on the scale of the
village. . .. What is the village like in modern societies and what isn’t it like? All small towns and
villages these days are part of regional networks. Their vitality depends on the network system. . .. Are
small communities really sustainable? [93]
Therefore, some would argue that in the light of inescapable deviations in the operation
of urban areas Krier has succumbed to the danger of holding too tenaciously to the
metaphor he has nurtured,
metaphor always provides a partial vision, a particular perspective, but even careful recognition of
this . . . does not avoid the risk of being captured by one’s metaphors, imprisoned in their visions and
the limitations of those visions [94].
Counter to this of course are Krier’s body of adherents who evaluate his alternative as
being less disruptive (in terms of costs, infrastructure and spatial patterns) to the
contemporary city than most schemes since the Second World War [95].
There is nothing in the physical structure of the traditional city that makes it incompatible with
contemporary technology, economy and lifestyle. I am mystied by what is so wrong, therefore, in a
yearning for the reconstruction of our cities. Is Warsaw kitsch, and how fake is the campanile of
Venice? [96]
For Krier there are a sufcient number of major cities largely structured in the way he
advocates to support his claims that polycentric cities are viable for the future. He points to
Paris, Seville, Venice, Siena, Bologna, Edinburgh New Town, Williamsburg and Dubrovnik
amongst others. Furthermore, evidence showing that the greatest depopulation losses are
from the largest urban areas [97] can be used to enhance Krier’s case. Krier advocates
polycentric cities and towns that are limited in size, as opposed to vast metropolitan
expanses. The smaller scale, community orientated, urban quarter he advocates may be a
suitable solution for many currently migrating to towns and villages beyond the metropolis.
The prospect of living and working within self-reliant, compact communities has been
greatly aided in recent years by notions of teleworking, branch ofces and rentable ofce
space within telecentres. Advances in electronic communication, for example, signicantly
eliminate obstacles related to time and space, making physically discrete and autonomous
places quite practicable. Densities that are substantially higher than those found in
suburban development make it possible for many community and commercial services to
meet acceptable viability targets.
Polycentric cities represent an alternative that offers environmental and social gains,
particularly in terms of transport needs, accessibility of facitilities, street life, greater leisure
time and security. In these respects, urbanization based on notions of organicism does
engage with popular debate on urban challenges. However, the lifestyle offered is not the
norm in Britain at present and for many it would not be the preferred option. Those
prioritzing personal anonymity and social networks not based on their residential
neighbourhood may nd such environs too claustrophobic. Even so, the adaption of a
polycentric alternative is one of a raft of options that merit evaluation within the context of
specic development planning investigations.
One area where criticism is more warranted is in the link made between organic
urbanization, traditionalism and authoritarianism. While organic development options are
not necessarily intrinsically based on traditional styles, in practice, most are, and certainly
those presented in this paper are. A common factor is the desire to ensure the longterm
retention of urban form and character. It is the latter aspect that is particularly noteworthy
in developments following a traditional design. Maintenance of traditional character
requires the enforcement of demanding design codes. Similar implementation techniques
have long been used in areas of historic conservation. The implication that they might be
commonly executed where new urban development is based on organic principles raises
some concern. As a minimum, the process for mediating between the authoritarian
demands of the scheme instigators and the democratic claims of the scheme inhabitants
needs to be more explicitly stated than it is at present.
Furthermore, there are indications that these authoritarian aspects of the concretization
of the organic metaphor are not solely related to achieving aesthetic standards. Hepple [98]
argues that any aspects metaphors may hide can be important ‘strategic silences’ and,
together with the factors illuminated by the metaphor, are appropriated by social groups to
their own ends, and can be applied to vindicate certain societal arrangements. One
dimension of an organic metaphor used to support a traditional form of urban
development is that it can be linked to past social orders, which proponents may be
implicitly encouraging. Krier, Bolt, Girardet, Yanarella and Levine all hint at this in their
stated concern for the resurrection of community identity and responsibility. The Urban
Villages Group and Congress for the New Urbanism, for example, are in many respects
explicit about their aims for an urbanity which encourages civilized community and family
relations that contrast with the apparent loss of community (patriarchal?) control in
modern cities. The potential for such powerful groups to assert their preferred societal
arrangements in this way belies the apparent innocence of the recent changes to urban
growth management guidelines and policies (referred to earlier in this paper) at all
governmental levels.
Overall, Krier’s use of the organic metaphor can be said to engage with signicant
contemporary challenges relating to future urban form. The organic duplication of urban
quarters within larger urban areas would have benecial outcomes in terms of such things
as energy use, infrastructure costs, public transit, accessibility and personal safety. The
enduring viability of similar models of urban form in other parts of the western world is
testimony to the concept’s currency. Furthermore, continuing adaptions to electronic
communication technology make spatial location less important in many elds of
employment. This provides much greater exibility in terms of the potential links between
residential, work and leisure activities. However, the desirability of maintaining rigid
building and design codes is questionable. Realistically, widespread adoption of the Krier
vision of organic development would require the institution of local democratic processes to
avoid the authoritarian mechanisms of social control that currently accompany the
implementation of the associated masterplan.
INFLUENCE OF THE METAPHOR ON KNOWLEDGE
The clashes between commentators illustrated in the section immediately above highlight
the process of discursive contestation which is fundamental in the negotiation of what is
construed as reality. In fact, more interesting than judging the accuracy or even currency of
metaphorical analogy is contemplating just how powerful the use of such a metaphor is in
understanding and actively constructing the city.
Without doubt, any metaphor causes the matters under consideration to be ‘seen’
differently, and meanings inevitably shift towards that of the metaphor. Krier’s comparison
naturally concentrates attention on those aspects that correlate with the metaphor
(particularly aspects of physical form) perhaps to the detriment of other issues (such as
issues relating to social processes). Consequently, some authors believe metaphors can be
quite misleading [99]. Hepple warns that once a metaphor becomes conventional and
understood in a literal sense, as if it is real, then the dangers of its use can really emerge. By
this time the metaphor (or particular version or form of a root metaphor) is unlikely to
provide any creative input into the progress of theory, but can still operate successfully in
guiding academic acumen and social experience.
Undoubtedly, Krier’s use of metaphor prompts recognition of similarities between organic
and urban congurations. This has nurtured the development of revised conceptual
understandings of the city. Krier has successfully made his vision apparent to many who
design, develop and manage cities. His potent involvement in active urbanist campaigns
linked to government policy making, and his closely scrutinized role in the creation of
Poundbury, has resulted in his notions penetrating practitioner discourse on urbanization.
This has affected interpretations of the modern industrial city. Much unravelling of
modernist, and more particularly post World War II, development has consequently taken
on Krier’s ideas. In particular, his account of the inadequacies of contemporary
urbanization has inuenced strategies for dealing with future urban development. Krier’s
concepts have inltrated such a wide variety of circles that they are commonplace within
popular parlance. Adaptations of Krier’s notions can now be recognized in many projects
and policies. In particular, use of the term ‘urban village’ is inescapable within planning
rhetoric and practice in Britain. Hence, Krier’s organic metaphor is playing a consequential
role in reconstructing our understanding of the twentieth century city. Not only that, to a
signicant extent it is also guiding the ow of ideas on the management of the city, and
even resulting in the re-establishment of a conservative system of social control within
urban communities.
Conclusion
Urban policies and landscapes are never neutral. Exploration of the metaphorical rhetoric
employed by theorists, and its wider dissemination, provides an important insight into the
context and appropriation of theoretical notions. In the case of the organic urbanist revival
discussed in this paper, I have attempted to demonstrate the link that needs to be made
between explanatory practices and agendas and the resultant normative strategies and
landscapes. The Krier example has illustrated how closely linked any deciphering of the city
is to the ideology and purpose of the theorist involved. This is particularly salient given that
Krier’s revision of the organic metaphor for the city has stimulated many groups into a
fresh comprehension of the form of urban development and scenarios for the future.
On the surface, Krier’s vision appears to concentrate on the layout and design of urban
areas, perhaps at the expense of considering what it is that makes a humane city. However,
closer scrutiny reveals that there is a telling social agenda in both the work of Krier and those
who have been inuenced by his thinking. Krier’s vision is a retreat from the industrial
metropolis. His alternative is sourced from pre-industrial urban exemplars. However, with
the industrial transformation of cities came a reduction in the perceived need to maintain the
historic urban form. Reclaiming that form would now require a very tight rein to be kept,
perhaps with fewer justications than existed two hundred years ago. However, this tight
rein envisaged by Krier has implications beyond physical structure. It cannot avoid affecting
the social composition and behaviour of those living in the ensuing landscapes. But more
than this, it would seem to be a deliberate move to regain a measure of control over urban
conduct, and certainly an enlivened civility. Of course the unpredictable participation of
humans in their communities will challenge and modify such authoritarian constraints. But
the planning community needs to be aware of these implications when endorsing such a
paradigm. The physical environment we see being created today, in response to Krier’s
original ideas, is not innocent or natural, rather it is integrally connected to complex mental
processes and social, indeed moral, endeavours. It is a poignant reminder that in our
deciphering of the city we also contribute to a particular reproduction of the city.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Leon Krier for kindly supplying all the line drawings for this
article. Thanks are also due to Dr Ian Scargill, Professor Martin Elson, Dr Alisdair Rogers,
Dr Judith Gerber, Dr Paula Gonçalves and the referees for their comments on earlier drafts
of this paper. This paper is part of a wider research study nancially assisted by the
following means: Mobil Study Award, NZ Planning Institute; National Environment
Award, NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women; British Federation of Women
Graduates Charitable Foundation; Sir Herbert Manzoni Scholarship Trust; Violet Wood
Advanced Studies Grant, St Cuthbert’s College Old Girls’ Association; ORS Award,
Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the UK.
An earlier version of the paper was presented to the RGS– IBG Annual Conference Urban
Geography Study Group Session on ‘Figuring the city’, Exeter 1997.
References
1. E.J. Yanarella and R.S. Levine, The sustainable cities manifesto: pretext, text and post-text. Built
Environment 18 (1992) pp. 301– 13.
2. L. Krier, Organic vs. mechanical composition, in D. Porphyrios (ed.) Leon Krier: houses, palaces,
cities. London: Architectural Design, 1984, pp. 110–11.
3. L. Krier, The reconstruction of the European city: 1978–1984, in R. Economakis (ed.) Leon
Krier: architecture and urban design 1967–1992. London: Academy Editions, 1992, pp. 16–21.
4. L. Krier, The size of a city, in R. Economakis (ed.) op. cit. [3], p. 23.
5. L. Krier, Recorded interview with the author, Claviers, France, May 1996.
6. H. Girardet, The Gaia atlas of cities: new directions for sustainable urban living. London: Gaia
Books, 1992.
7. D. Bolt, The development ratio: a model for a humane urban future, unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Auckland, 1983.
8. D. Bolt, Recorded interview with the author, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 1995.
9. E. Scholnick and K. Cookson, A developmental analysis of cognitive semantics: what is the role of
metaphor in the construction of knowledge and reasoning?, in W. Overton and D. Palermo (eds)
The nature and ontogenesis of meaning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.
10. T. Barnes and J.S. Duncan (eds) Writing worlds: discourse, texts and metaphors in the
representation of landscape. London: Routledge, 1992, p. 3.
11. D. Cosgrove, Environmental thought and action: pre-modern and post-modern. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 15 (1990) p. 345.
12. R. Barthes, Mythologies. New York: Hill & Wang, 1986.
13. L.W. Hepple, Metaphor, geopolitical discourse and the military in South America, in T.J. Barnes
and J.S. Duncan (eds) Writing worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of
landscape. London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 136–54.
14. A. Buttimer, Musing on helicon: root metaphors and geography. Geograska Annaler Series B
Human Geography 64 (1982) pp. 89– 96.
15. V. Berdoulay, La métaphore organiciste: contribution à l’étude du langage des géographes.
Annales de Géographie 91 (1982) pp. 573 –86.
16. S.C. Pepper, World hypotheses: a study in evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1942.
17. D.R. Stoddart, Organism and ecosystem as geographical models, in R.J. Chorley and P. Haggett
(eds) Models in geography. London: Methuen, 1967, pp. 511–48.
18. L.W. Hepple, op. cit. [13] p. 141.
19. Ibid., pp. 136–54.
20. A. Buttimer, op. cit. [14].

21. D.R. Stoddart, op. cit. [17].
22. V. Berdoulay, op. cit. [15].
25. R.E. Park, E.W. Burgess, and R.D. McKenzie, The city. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1925.
26. E. Howard, Tomorrow: a peaceful path to real reform. London: S. Sonnenschein, 1898.
27. P.Geddes, Cities in evolution: an introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of
civics. London: Williams and Norgate, 1915.
28. D.R. Stoddart, op. cit. [17], p. 513.
30. A. Buttimer, Geography and the human spirit. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1993, p. 158.
32. R.L. Meier, A communication theory of urban growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.
34. M.Breheny, The compact city: an introduction. Built Environment 18 (1993) pp. 241 –46.
35. J. Lovelock, Gaia: a new look at life on earth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
36. R. Williams, Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana 1988.
37. J.V. Punter and M. Carmona, Design policies in English local plans: the search for substantive
principles and appropriate procedures. Urban Design International 1 (1996) pp. 125 –43.
38. Ibid., p. 140.
39. C. Jencks, The language of postmodern architecture. London: Academy Editions, 1991.
40. E.J. Yanarella and R.S. Levine, op. cit. [1].
41. Ibid., p. 311.
42. D. Bolt, op. cit. [7].
43. D. Bolt, op. cit. [8].
44. H. Girardet, op. cit. [6].
45. Ibid., p. 19.
46. Ibid., p. 20.
47. E.J. Yanarella and R.S. Levine, op. cit. [1], p. 302.
48. D. Watkin, Leon Krier, in R. Economakis (ed.), op. cit. [3], pp. 12 –13.
49. D. Porphyrios (ed.), op. cit. [2], p. 5.
51. R. Economakis (ed.), op. cit. [3], p. 7.
52. C. Rowe, The revolt of the senses, in D. Porphyrios (ed.), op. cit. [2], p. 9.
53. L. Krier, op. cit. [5].
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. C. Jencks, op. cit. [39].
57. N. Ellin, Postmodern urbanism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
58. D. Harvey, The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
59. A. Colquhoun, Essays in architectural criticism: modern architecture and historical change.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.
60. P. Wright, Re-enchanting the nation: Prince Charles and architecture. Modern Painters 2 (1989)
pp. 26– 35.
61. D. Porphyrios, Introduction, in R. Economakis (ed.), op. cit. [3], pp. 9-10.
63. A. Colquhoun, op. cit. [59], p. 15.
64. C. Rowe, op. cit. [52].
65. D. Watkin, op. cit [48], p. 12.

66. J. Robertson, The empire strikes back, in D. Porphyrios (ed.), op. cit. [2], p. 12.
68. L. Krier, op. cit. [3], p. 16.
70. Ibid.
71. L. Krier, op. cit. [3], p. 17.
72. L. Krier, op. cit. [4], p. 23.
73. Ibid.
74. L. Krier, op. cit. [3], p. 17.
76. C. Rowe, op. cit. [52], p. 7.
77. T.J. Barnes, Reading the texts of theoretical economic geography: the role of physical and
biological metaphors, in T.J. Barnes and J.S. Duncan (eds), op. cit. [10] pp. 118–35 Writing
worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape. London: Routledge,
1992, pp. 118–35.
78. R. Harré and G. Gillett, The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.
79. M. Thompson-Fawcett, The urbanist revision of development. Urban Design International 1
(1996) pp. 303– 4.
81. P. Katz (ed.), The new urbanism: toward an architecture of community. London: McGraw-Hill,
1994.
82. M. Thompson-Fawcett, op. cit. [79].
83. Quote from a letter from HRH Prince of Wales to Stephen Mattick, 3 June 1989, in J. Dimbleby,
The Prince of Wales: a biography. London: Warner Books, 1994, pp. 563–4.
84. Duchy of Cornwall information brouchure, Poundbury. London: The Duchy of Cornwall, 1996.
86. Ibid.
87. M. Hesse, Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Brighton: Harvester
Press, 1980.
88. J. Robertson, op. cit. [66], p. 13.
89. D. Porphyrios, op. cit. [2], p. 17.
90. Interview with Dianne Suggich by David Harvey in: City lights, city shadows – episode 3.
London: BBC Radio 4 programme, 1993.
91. D. Harvey, City lights, city shadows – episode 3. London: BBC Radio 4 programme, 1993.
92. Interview with Richard MacCormac by David Harvey op. cit. [91].
93. Recorded telephone interview with Richard MacCormac by the author, 1995.
94. L.W. Hepple, op. cit. [13], p. 142.
95. J. Robertson, op. cit. [66].
96. D. Porphyrios, op. cit. [61], p. 10.
97. M. Breheny, Planning the sustainable city region. Town and Country Planning 62 (1993)
pp. 71 –5.
98. L.W. Hepple, op. cit. [13], p. 142.
99. M.A. Arbib and M.B. Hesse, The construction of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986.
View publication stats

Krierarticle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Krierarticle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Planning Perspectives · April 1998

Sustainability Assessment and Mauri in International Contexts View project

Exploring the multifaceted ancestral landscape View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Leon Krier and the organic revival within urban

School of Geography, University of Oxford, Manseld Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK

# 1998 E & FN Spon 0266-5433

The organic metaphor

Recent adaptations of organicism

Krier’s use of the organic metaphor

. . . a city must be a nite object . . . [71]

Figure 3. Family growth (drawing courtesy of Leon Krier).

Inuence on policy and practice

KRIER AND THE URBAN VILLAGES GROUP

KRIER AND THE CONGRESS FOR THE NEW URBANISM

KRIER AND POUNDBURY

Conventional road and housing pattern

Poundbury housing pattern

Figure 8. Housing as completed in rst phase of Poundbury development.

Assessment of Krier’s organic metaphor

METAPHOR AND OBJECT

the analogy more by way of a normative proposition than a reection of existing

METAPHOR AND CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES

INFLUENCE OF THE METAPHOR ON KNOWLEDGE

20. A. Buttimer, op. cit. [14].

65. D. Watkin, op. cit [48], p. 12.

View publication stats

You might also like

School of Geography, University of Oxford, Manseld Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK

. . . a city must be a nite object . . . [71]

Inuence on policy and practice

Figure 8. Housing as completed in rst phase of Poundbury development.

the analogy more by way of a normative proposition than a reection of existing