Basic HTML Version
December 1970
CITIES
BE SAVED?
(Co11limted from
page
6)
many experts are pessimistic about
the future .
"Our great cities have lost command
of themselves and their futures," said
John W. Gardner, Chai rman of the
Urban Coalition, "and they lie helpless
as the multiplc waves of crises roll over
them.
" THEY H.AVE REACHED THE END OF
THI!IR ROPE."
But why? Why haven't we taken the
necessary steps to solve the city prob–
lem ? We have the record of cities of
past ages. Ancient Rome, the medieval
cities, the cities of the early Industrial
Revolution should
ALL
have served as
examples of everything wrong with our
urban way of life.
Where and when bave
WE
gone
wrong?
Why
didn't we
avoid
those problems
in the 20th Century instead of com–
pounding the muddle by uncontrolled
mass technology ?
There is a reason why. Thc problems
that coofront our cities can be solved
ONLY
by
immediate and total
govern–
ment action. Yet, when the mayors of
sorne of America's largest cities met
with President Nixon, they admitted
they were losing control of theii cities.
We have come to the point where one
official doubted if even a
diclator
could
solve the city problem.
The Problem of No Planning
Today's cities, for the most part, have
not been planned. They just "hap–
pened." They are the result of uncon–
trollcd and unprovided-for growth
merely for the sake of growth. They
have become giant, ugly, malignant
tumors. And, like cancer, an adequate
cure has not been found. Yct, solving
the problems of today's cities seems to
be far more difficult than cming cancer.
Why?
Because, said U. S. Housing and
Urban Development Secretary George
Romney, "in too many cases, the city
The
PLATN TRUTH
lacks clear definition of what it is or
ought to be." He asked,
"What
is a
city? Does anybody know?»
In other words, we have
no modeJ
of
what a city should be like. And yet, we
are going ahead with thc construction
of
11eu·
citics.
New Cities: The Answer?
f oreseeing the crush of futu re popu–
lation growth, a committee of public
officials has recommended that the
Uni ted States build 110 new cities.
They propose building 100 new cities
to accommodate at least 100,000 per–
sons each. Ten other new cities would
contain
al
least
one mil/ion
persons
each.
New CJtJes
are
needed. They would
help solve the problem of increasing
population. But is a city of
one million
ideal? And if those new cities are built
on the same basic patterns of our
present cities, won't they create more
problems than they will solve?
What we need is a specific delinition
of
ll'hat a
CÍIJ
sho11ld be
like before we
bui ld 110 new monstrosities. Yet, the
31
Wid• Wcwld
Pholo
nations have no such model to follow!
We have only our
preunt
cities as
examples.
"W
e
cmmot start t1•ith the
city
as 111e
knou· il
llOtl',"
wrote renowned planner
and architcct Constandinos
A.
Doxiadis,
"much less with urban rcnewal projects
as at present conceived. We must start
by properly cooceiving a suitable way of
life for man, and then proceed to find
the way of life we want to have in our
settlements"
(U
rbtm
Renell'al and the
P11t11re
of
the
America11
City,
Con–
standinos A. Doxiadis, page
122).
Yet, we seemingly do not know
"what is a suitablc way of life" or can–
not apply ourselves to put this way of
life into practice. Almost everything we
do treats the
effecl,
not the
ccmse.
We
are so intent on reforming, piecemeal,
the present system that we seldom stop
to ask: Is the present system which
spawns cities the right way to live?
Given our prcsent system and
approach, there is no way to avoid
cities as we have them.
"Given a rate of population growth,"