The first things the authors do is outline what the book is
about, how they hope the ideas will be received, and what the limitations of
those ideas are. It is a self-imposed limiting of the book by the authors. The
first section is more or less a decree of aspired intention.
The Goodman’s then move on to discuss historical city plans.
Their discussion is primarily a critique of the old plans. Paris and Moscow are
discussed a lot as is the development of New York City. The issues come from
the old plans of green belts and suburbs which allowed richer people to get
away from the density of the cities. This exodus causes blight as money moves
away from the cities and the services provided by cities are duplicated.
To resolve these issues the Goodman’s suggest much smaller
metropolises. They discuss how our urban sprawls push the forests and farmland
away to the fringe so that we often have to travel hours and many miles to see
any nature. That we build cities as hubs of commerce and industry and suburbs
for living and that the inflow of people causes massive congestion.
What’s kind of funny is this book was written in 1947. And
it is perhaps even more relevant now than it was then.
One of the primary goals of their suggested cities is to
have farms, residential, light industry, and sometimes heavy industry all
contained within a five mile radius. They suggest smaller produce farms be closer
to the city and that heavier industry and commercial and livestock farms be
pushed to the outskirts among the forest areas. How is this all resolved and
supporting a large population? Housing density and the incorporation of houses,
school, and parks all in the residential areas while having light industry
within walking distance. The suburban homes so familiar across U.S. cities
become small produce farms.
They draw a distinct line between subsistence, the
essentials to support life, and the economy of goods and services and
everything we desire but are not necessary to live. One thing that is certainly
interesting, and that I see in my daily commute while living in the DC
metropolitan area this summer, is their complaint about transportation.
Time spent transporting goods or a person is essentially
life wasted. As we construct urban sprawls we make necessary transportation and
middle men to transport goods and people. The time adds up tremendously, I
spend three hours a day in transit. The same is true for food. In all our major
cities most of the food has to be trucked in from at least thirty to fifty
miles outside the city, if not farther, just so that we can have people live an
hour away by train or car to all feed the economy of the city. Essentially, we
are too concentrated.
It may seem like I agree with all points of the book, but I
was not a big fan of the structure (more of which is to come) and I found some
ideas questionable.
The Goodman’s, and I think it is Paul Goodman who writes
this, sees a necessity for structure in adult human lives, that children should
spend most of the time running free (almost sounding like reading is a waste of
time for children) and that everyone should have access to high society, be it
theater or whatever. To me this discounts academic pursuits children may be
inclined to, discounts the idea that adults may like to think and have free
time, and discounts that culture exists in the barn dance just as much as it
exists in the ballet. That part and tone did not sit well with me.
Anyways, if you’ve read this far and are still interested
chances are you should read the book. I am not doing it justice, but I am not
really trying to. The point more so is to bring out some of the ideas proposed
and to perhaps entice another reader.
From the proposal there is another discussion of old plans.
This discussion not only includes what the plans entailed but was more about
how they were implemented. And from there the Goodman’s discuss the need for an
interim plan.
One of the key factors of an interim plan and any plan
according to the Goodman brothers is its flexibility. When planning for people
and large groups of people change will occur. A key point they make is that any
plan must include the fact that the plan may eventually not be followed.
From there it is another review of the limits of previous
plans and a statement of the limitations of the ideas and information within
the book. The book kind of opens, ascends, peaks, and follows the same path
back down that it used to get to the peak.
Lastly, there is an appendix with a proposed plan for
Manhattan Island laid out in detail. This I am currently finishing and will not
add any more regarding this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment