Annaliese Roegner

Dr. Peter Kuryla

HON 1140

5 November 2022

Contrast of Howards, Le Corbusier, and Charlie Chaplin

In three books concerning city planning; Garden Cities of Tomorrow written by Ebenezar

Howard, Towards a New Architecture written by Le Corbusier, and City Lights by Charlie

Chaplin, the city is experienced and viewed in three hugely different ways. All of the authors

different approaches can be compared and contrasted throughout the books. While Howard

searches for the balance between city and country and Le Corbusier urges people towards

industrialization, Charlie Chaplin simply causes us to question the way “things are done” within

the city. By contrasting these three extremely different works a greater understanding of the city

and what city planning can strive for can be gained.

In The Garden Cities of Tomorrow Ebenezar Howards struggles with the question of how to find

a balance in life through the city. He juxtaposes the concepts of city and country life through

wages, society, nature, and the overall quality of life. Within the city a person can easily attain

high wages and a good social life but the cons should be considered around the high costs of

living and pollution within the city. In contrast to the city, the countryside has a lower cost of

living while also no pollution combined with the beauty of the natural landscape, but it lacks the

bustling social life of the city and with the lower costs of living also comes lower wages for more

work. Howards, not willing to settle in either of these places, puts together a formula in which

the pros of each can be combined, leaving the cons out of the picture.
His city comes to being through a strict formula of organization, it plans for the now and for

future expansion. His plan is for a set of circles that are centered around a certain type of civic

space and garden which then expands to schools and homes and finally to industrial businesses.

He tries to avoid the impacts of the industrial city and in order to keep each of his specified

zones, a new city should be built, connected to the current city. He believes that through the

influence of this perfectly utopian city the city will begin to influence good in others.

Although Howards has the best of intentions he assumes that people will naturally work

towards his formula of his city, creating a form of utopian future. He recognizes that there will

first be failure “Sucess if for the most part, built on failure,” (Howard, 10) but fails to fully

consider the faults of a city that can not build up or out within his solution of simply creating a

new city. If a family wants to live together, how can they be comfortable in being unsure that

they will not be seperated if they are to move to “the next city. Though he does not adress these

concerns, he simply sees the city as a man; we must learn through attempting and achieving

towards high goals. “All that man is, and all that he may become, is summed up in his

aspirations.” (Howards, 14) He sums up these aspirations with “first of all ascertain[s] what

things are desirable for our health and happiness of body and mind, and then organize our people

with the object of producing those things in the best and easiest way.” (Howards, 17) Even

though he recognizes that the city will naturally grow and overcome solutions through its time

being in effect, it is still daunting to create a highly regulated place such as The Garden City

from scratch and simply assume inhabitants will easily comply.

A very different approach to planning the city is given by Le Corbusier in Towards a New

Architecture. Corbusier believes in the need for industrialism and strict order. He organizes the

city through the concept of Mass (something our senses measure and perceive), Surface (the

envelopment of mass), and the Plan (that creates both mass and surface). Everything is built for a
sole purpose and function, disregarding visual experience. He aims towards creating a city in

which everything is built and formed simply because of the functions of the interior. He aims

towards mass production and efficiency, disregarding the need for any type of style as it is

something that does not belong to us but only comes naturally within our periods.

Corbusier drives to create the city through a sense of raw truth. He says that “the business of

Architecture is to establish emotional relationships by means of raw materials.” (7). His aim is

for a total transparency throughout the entire city so that people can most efficiently and

effectively move about it in each of their own ways. He designs with this complete transparency

of uses in mind, even going to say so far as to say that “Houses are just a machine for living.”

Corbusier and Howards have two very extreme views of how the city should function and be

built. They both attempt to influence the people’s good and morals through their city planning

practices. However, in trying to achieve this, they also create some form of unrealistic utopia.

Both city planners create with a strict, unattainable and controlling order as the end goal.

Nevertheless they both create two completely different types of cities with Corbusier

emphasizing the need for efficiency while Howards simply tries to create the perfect balance

between country and city life in the city.

Charlie Chaplin, on the other hand, manages to probe both Howards and Le Corbusier’s methods

while questioning every form of city planning and current city within his film City Lights.

Chaplin studies phenomenology, a study of consciousness from the first-person view. This is

found through the experience of the world and a sort of intentionality with his characters within

the film. His lovable character, the tramp, is Charlie’s characters who causes the audience to

question the “normal” way of doing things. As someone who lives in a very different type of

society, he does not follow the unspoken rules of the city. While Corbusier and Howards both
try to create a certain form of consciousness, Chaplin simply attempts to study it and bring into

question how it functions in the minds and lives of the viewers of his film.

Charlie Chaplin causes viewers to question the roles within society and the city through a variety

of misused objects and uncommon actions. Such as when the tramp mistakes the streamers for

his pasta and mindlessly eats these tasteless decorations. He also causes viewers to question the

general consciousness and roles of characters within the story, such as the blind woman who is

given sight at the end of the film.

Through Chaplin’s film viewers are invited to challenge the formulas of society and the city

layout instead of simply mindlessly following them. Meanwhile Howards and Le Corbusier

simply present us with a quick solution that is unlikely to create a lasting fix. By comparing

Chaplin’s film with the two books, it can be understood why neither Corbusier’s nor Howard’s

plans were fully effective as they tended to focus on only one state of consciousness when really

the city plays around so many intricately defined and fragile parts.

City planning is not and never will be a formula. Every city planner must carefully examine the

area he is designing around. This includes aspects of the city such as culture, budget, time, and

place. City planning is also not something that cannot be done for only the present moment. It

must look forward to the needs of the future city, cities are places that are constantly changing

and developing, and no formula can withstand this. Only if a deep care for the past, current, and

future circumstances of the city are in place, can effective city planning be carried out.

Jane Jacob Essay

Throughout Jane Jacob’s book The Death and Life of Great American Cities she

examines several different themes within how a city functions. Four of her most common themes

include the functions of sidewalks, the formation of neighborhoods, diversity within the city, and
the creation and upkeep of slums. Although she had many critics (through her critiques of their

work) and many planners ridiculed her and her writing, we can see these themes and their

functions within cities, even today.

Jane brings to our attention the importance of sidewalks in city life. Though this may seem like

an unimportant topic, sidewalks are vital to the safety and function of the city. Her theory

regarding sidewalks and how they should be formed has three requirements. Her first

requirement is that there should be a separation between private and public spaces. Sidewalks

proved people with a public space to interact while also insuring people of their own private

space within their homes. Jane has a hate for “nosy neighbors” who have no consideration for the

need of private and public boundaries.

Her second requirement is that there should always be “eyes” on the street and third that

sidewalks should continually be in use. Jane believes that safety comes in numbers. If there are

people present a place automatically becomes safer. If a street is empty or does not have any

uses, it becomes a place of crime. If a street combines businesses that draw in customers

throughout both the day and the night, along providing residential dwellings, “sidewalks” are

created in a way in which they are safe for everyone. An example of this would be having stores,

bars, and restaurants along the streets, and housing above. A combination of all of these creates

uses for the sidewalk throughout the day. Stores, especially small businesses draw people in

along with allowing workers to keep an eye of the sidewalk. Bars draw people in during the

night. And, finally, if people live on the street, they will automatically try to ensure that it is a

safer place. When there is a lack of use and people, that is when a street truly becomes

dangerous.
Jane also puts a huge emphasis on the formation of neighborhoods. Jane states that there are three

different types of neighborhoods. These include the city as a whole, street neighborhoods, and

finally districts (normally consisting of 10,000 to 100,000 people, dependent on the size of the

city). Jane emphasizes the need for districts as they give a voice to inhabitants, city streets, and

small neighborhoods. The districts creates a larger community so that issues can gain traction in

the city as a whole, a singular street, person, or neighborhood will not be able to make a noticable

impact. “Nothing much ever happens when one helpless little street fights alone some of the most

serious problems of a great city.” (123) Districts also create connections to people who can make

a change. Districts also must allow for greater uses and attractions; “within the limits of a town or

village, the connections among its people keep crossing and recrossing.” (115) Different uses are

vital to creating a thriving community. These are created through an overlap of streets, function,

culture, and people who will stay for a time. The district is a vital part creating an effective city.

Next Jane moves on to her conversation regarding diversity within the city. “Big cities are natural

generators of diversity and prolific incubators of new enterprises and ideas of all kinds.” (145) The

city naturally grows under the influence of and cultivates diversity. "We want lively, well-used

streets and other public spaces,” (Jane, 140) this comes about through diversity in regards to both

people and uses. Streets become less lively if they only have one use. In Jane’s book she writes

about the practical type of diversity that brings the different working parts of the city together.

Jane has four rules for creating diversity within the city. First each district must have more than

two functions. Second blocks need to be short. Third there must be a mingling of old and new

buildings. Finally there must be a dense concentration of people who are there, this includes

residential diversity.
 To achieve this diversity, there must first be a mixture of both old and new buildings

within the city and different neighborhoods. If a certain development has only new buildings it

will become an expensive neighborhood, attracting only one type of person and culture. For

example, a small, unique shop cannot afford a neighborhood with only new, expensive buildings.

No small shop will be realistically able to afford this when starting out, they must work their way

up. Another way to create diversity within the city is through the order of the streets. Jane argues

that human beings naturally crave difference. Through simply shortening the lengths of the

blocks different paths can be made for city dwellers, creating more possibility for differences,

allowing for more diversity.

This brings us to the final theme throughout Jane Jacob’s book; borders. Borders can either

become barriers or seams that either destroy or bring the city together depending on how they are

used. Some example of borders include universities, rivers and lakes, housing projects,

interstates, and railroad tracks. Often these borders create barriers within the city, allowing, one

side of the track to be a rich neighborhood and the other to simply be a poor development.

Bad borders, or barriers will often restrict economic flow and commerce. It also will separate

two different types of cultures, often in different districts. These barriers can be called vacuums.

They suck the life out of everything around them and simply absorb it, causing the people within

them to stop mingling. What borders should instead achieve are what are called seams. There

should be complementary uses across borders. This can be achieved only by creating access to

both sides of the border. An example of a seam is a park. If both sides of the street combat

barriers and create a partnership it can create a lively place of mixed territory for people from

different districts to mingle.

 Nashville is a great example of all these themes, as a quickly changing city it can help us

to understand everything Jane talks about. As a growing city, people are constantly moving in

and out which makes it impossible to develop strong neighborhoods. The differences of what is

in the neighborhood also makes an impact on the people dwelling within. Even within the

different districts of Belmont, Vandy, and Hillsborough, there is a complete change in

atmosphere. This is a perfect example of Nashville’s barriers which can be repaired only by

increased diversity. Nashville is called a “city of neighborhoods,” though some regard this as

something positive, it could also be argued that this simply means the city is disconnected.

An example of neighborhoods in Nashville is the rebuilding of the Titan’s stadium. This

will likely create an unsafe neighborhood. This is only one type of business which will only

allow for people to be there at the times of games, making this part of the city unsafe at every

other time. There is also the question of how this neighborhood will connect with the larger city

and if it will only create more barriers.

Another discussion regarding examples can be within Belmont itself. In the new Fisher

Center there is an issue regarding diversity and multiple uses. The building was said that it would

be built for the use of students, but instead is used only for large, expensive, events, terminating

diversity. It can also be questioned whether Belmont works as a barrier or a seam. Vanderbilt

works only as a barrier, surrounded by walls.

By looking at all these different themes we can better understand how a city works and

functions. Although Jane may have had many critiques, she is truly aware of many issues

regarding city planning and how many cities are made and designed, both in the past and still in

the present moment. Her four themes of sidewalks, neighborhoods, diversity, and barriers, can all

help us to understand how the city functions.

 Works Cited
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life f Great American Cities. Random House, 1961.
Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. J. Rodker, 1931.
Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Project Gutenberg, 1902.
City Lights. Charlie Chaplin. The Criterion Collection, 1931.