Invisible Cities Lewis Mumford, Thomas Adams, and the Invention of the Regional City, 1925-1929

7/28/2019 Invisible Cities Lewis Mumford, Thomas Adams, and the Invention of the Regional City, 1925-1929

1/15

Invisible Cities: Lewis Mumford, Thomas Adams,and the Invention of the Regional City, 1925-1929AndrewA. MeyersDepartmentfHistoryColumbianiversity

"Americansensehatsomethingswrongwiththeplaces herewe liveandwork and go aboutour dailybusiness."o begins recent eremiad yauthorHowardKunstler n the "environmentalalamity" e call he suburbs[Kunstler, 996, p. 43]. Criticspoint to fundamentalspects f post-warplanning, uchas zoning,highway ependence,nd decentralization,s thedeterminantsf ourcurrent uburbanandscape.uthowdidbusinessome othe suburbs,ndhow did zoningcreate he "EdgeCities"we havecome oboth love and hate?Long before urban renewal, he interstate ighwayprogram, evittown ndEdgeCities, coherent ltemafiveo the "congestedcity"already ominatedopular, rofessional,ndpolitical iscourse.he newidealof the "regionality"projected rationallylanned ndzoned itywhichsegregatedesidential,ommercial,nd ndustrial ses, swell as social lasses.The new metropolis ouldbe anchored y a concentratedentral usinessdistrict, onnectedy expresswayso concentric,ow-densityesidentialndindustrial uburbanings.Most importantly,he whole ensemblewould beordered ccordingo a comprehensiveegionallan. t wasout of the debatesover regionalism"uringhe1920shat hisnewurban ision merged.In March of 1923 critic Lewis Mumford, architectClarence Stem andother like-mindedeformersormed he Regional lanningAssociation fAmerica RPAA),a loosely nit associationf urban eformers.n Julyof thesameyear ThomasAdamsbecameDirectorof Plansand Surveysor theRussellSageFoundation'sroposed egional urvey f New York and itsEnvirons, the forerunnerof the RPNY. As a result of these efforts, the

The Regional lanning ssociationf Americawasa loosely nit associationf like-mindedndividualsroma variety f disciplines.s a prominentritic ndsecretaryf theorganization,ewisMumfordbecameheRPAA's hief heorist ndpolemicist.haveusedhim as he primary pokesperson.n excellentreatment f the collaborafiveatureof theRPAA s KermitC. Parsonsnpublishedaper, The Collaborafiveenius f the RegionalPlanning ssociationf America," ugust, 993. would iketo thankProfessorarsonsfor sogenerouslyharingisencyclopedicnowledgef Stein nd heRPAA.The RegionalPlanof New York was tselfa product f manyhands. dams ecame irectorof Surveysin 1923,but hisofficial ole wasas coordinatornd synthesizerf the work of dozens fpeoplen several ommittees.or the sakeof simplicity haveused RPNY" to stand orthe organizationhat produced oth the Survey nd the Plan,as well as for the successororganization,heRegional lanAssociation.BUSINESSAND ECONOMICHISTORY,Volumewenty-seven,o. ,Winter998.Copyright1998 by heBusinessistory onference.SSN0894-6825.

292


2/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 293"regional ity"emerged uring he ate 1920s s theplannedesponseo theproblems f the Americanndustrial etropolis. hilethe City Beautifulmovement t the turn of the century ad dentifiedmanyof the sameurbanproblems,heregionalistsrewuponnewunderstandingsf city unctioning,governmentalctivism, ndthe natureof advancedapitalismo proposecompleteevision f spatialelationsn metropolitanew York.The regional-istsappropriatedhenineteenthentury ritiquesf "blight" nd"congestion"but recasthem n a rhetoric nd deologyhatproposed radicalestructuringof the cityaccordingo zoned unctioningnd"decentralization."et in 1929,upon the constructionf the RPAA'sproject n Radburn,N.J., and thepublicationf the RPNY's en-volumeurvey ndplan,an apparent reakoccurredn the ranksof theregionalistsver he fundamentaluestions:hatexactlys "theregion" ndwhatare he ruegoals f regional lanning?The significantifferenceetweenhetwo groups as hat he RPNYproceededrom an dealof metropolitanismhile he RPAAwasgroundedn aprofoundlynti-metropolitanommunitarianism.hileThomas dams oughtorationalize,einterpret,ndreinforcehe cultural ndeconomic egemonyfNewYork Cityasa regionalndnationalenter, ewisMumford alledor thedismembermentf the metropolitancityof the dead" n favorof a web ofsmall scale "satellite ciries." The difference is summarized in the contrast of theRPNY's diffuseecentralization"nd heRPAA's decentralization,"ypicallyopaqueermswhich, poncareful xamination,eveal hat he RPNY soughtto sustainrbanndustry ndcontain ispersal,hile heRPAA egitimizedheflight rom hecore.The rhetoricand models heseurbanvisionariesstablishednd pop-ularized reated new conception f the city whichwould dominate rbandiscourseor the next half century, nd yet the cities hey magined avebecomenvisible ities, bscuredy misinterpretationndmisapplication.yweilding he concepts f the region, ongestion,oning,and decentralization,the regionalismsf Adamsand Mumford sought o createsatellite uburbsintegratingomeandwork,but to different nds. he Hackensacklanfromthe RPNY and heRadburn lanof theRPAAbothemployedherhetoric fregional ecentralization,utwhile hegoalof theHackensacklanwasmixed-use ecentralizationn support f themetropolis,adburn ecame harbingerof the "dormitory uburb" ndsprawl. hispaperwill explorehe origins ndtransformationf suburbanoning n the plansandprojects f the regionalplanners f the 1920s, pecificallyheproposalsor twoNewJersey uburbsfNew York City, Hackensack eadows, nd Radbum.Like its present-daydescendants,oning, or the regionalists,as a tool for segregatingndrationalizingses, tabili.ingealestate alues, nd acilitatinghe removal fcertain ctivitiesromthe nnercity.Unlike ts progeny,egionaloningwasalsomeant o be a tool for increasingfficiencynd ntegrating ork andresidencehroughhecareful lanningndcreationf GardenCities.While heideas f theregionalistsaid hebasisor contemporaryoning,heyalsopoint


3/15

294 / ANDREW A. MEYERSto possible olutionsor today'ssuburban ridlockand battlesover theenvironmentalmpact f suburbanrowth.The RegionalCity

Mumford and Adamswere only the most prominentamongmanyreformers spousingegionalist rinciples uring he early decades f thetwentieth entury. he periodabounds ith definitions f the region, romwhichboth heRPAAandRPNY drew iberally. lthoughheywouldcome osuppressheircommon escent,othgroups ould race heirgenesiso theEnglishGardenCity movement f EbenezerHoward.Howard'svision,setdown n his To-raormw:Peacefulath oRealRearm 1898),and mplementednpart through series f projects roundLondon,wasof the removal f theworkingclass rom the congesteduarters f industrial ondon o satellitetowns hat wouldcombinehe bestattributes f both the town andcountry.TheseGardenCitieswouldbe constructedhrough combinationf philan-thropicandspeculationndcollectiveandownership,nclude othresidencesand factories, nd be limited o 32,000 esidents. ut it was as part of theregional lusterhat he GardenCitywould rulymary] ownandcountry, othat"eachnhabitant f thewholegroup, houghn onesenseiving n a townof small ize,wouldbe n realityivingn, andwouldenjoy headvantagesf, agreatandmostbeautiful ity;andyet all the freshdelights f the country...wouldbe withina very few minutes' ide or walk" [Howard,1965,p. 142].Howard'segional otion,often ost n hisconcemor GardenCityfinancingand civics,was hat of the "SocialCity" n whicha CentralCity of 58,000peoplewouldanchorhecluster f smaller ardenCities, eparatedromeachotherby forests ndgreenbeltsandconnectedy a rapid ransitsystem.ncombining hysical,conomic, nd cultural rguments,oward'sSocialCitywas he fttstcomplete lueprintor a region, nd t heldparticularway verthe hought f theAmericanegionalists.The RPNY's definition f the regionand of the role of regionalplanningynthesizedoward's ardenCityviewwiththe"ecological"rbananalysisf theUniversityf Chicago chool f Sociology.obert ark,EmestBurgess,ndLouisWirth formed hecoreof a groupof Chicago ociologistswhopioneeredhestudy f "human cology,"hescientifictudy f the"orderlyand ypical rouping f (thecity's) opulationnd nstitutions"ccordingonaturalawsof groupbehaviorndurban rowth Park, 925,pp.1-2].Parkandhiscollaboratorsetout n theearly1920so tum theprofessionf sociologyfrom the studyof society s a collection f individualsnto an ameliorafivesciencehatsaw hesocial roup san organic nitcapablef being ontrolledthroughhebenevolent anipulationf theurban nvironment.Their nvestigationsroducedhe Park-Burgessdart-board"iagram,whichsoughto illustrateow he awsof groupbehaviornevitablyroduceparticularity form.This form,by creating spatial ierarchyhroughandvalue, class,and ethnicity,n turn determined roup behavior.Burgess


4/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 295describeshegrowth f thecityas"a processf distribution...whichifts ndsots nd elocatesndividualsndgroups y residencendoccupation"ParkandBurgess,925,p.64].The naturalawsgoverninghisgrowthproducenormatire model, a "half moon and dart board," that rationalized theobservableegregationf the city into five concentricones:he centralbusinessistrict, ome o bothbusinessctivity nd hdhomelessopulation;the "zone in transition" of ethnic slums and artist colonies; the zone ofworking lass, econd-generationmmigrant omes; residenceoneof greateraffluence, nd finally the white collar commuter one. Despite semanticdifferences,oth the RPA_A ndRPNY wouldessentiallymbracehe ChicagoSchool efinition f theregion, ndbothwould ocus rimarily n theproblemof "congestion"n the egion.The CongestedCity

Look at the greatcity n its entirety:he turbidmassof trafficblocking he streets nd avenues,he slow-movingrowd ofpeople lamberingnto street-cars,levateds,ubways,heirarmspinioned o their sides,pushedand packed ike catde n ill-smelling ars... Look at the dingyslums f the EastSide,LongIslandCity, hestockyardeighborhoods.Why the greatcity?What arewe puttingn andwhatarewegettingout?How longcanwe stand he strains nddifficultiesthatarepeodiaro our age ongestedenters?Stein, 976, . 66]The specter f "congestion"auntedhe nvisible itiesof AdamsandMumford.But what exacdywas t? The term, nherited rom the housingreformers ndpatrician lanners f an earlier ay,hadbecome y the timeofits adoption y theregionalistsonflated iththenotions f '%light," slums,""overcrowding,"concentration,"mobility," density," nd "traffic jams."

The elasticityf the ermpermitted great&greeof ostensibleoncord etweenthe RPNY andRPAA at the levelof critique. lthough eitherMumfordnorAdams often felt the need to correct such rhetoricalconfusion, t is clear thattheirattacks ncongestionctuallyontainedwodistinctoncerns,neeconomic,the othersocial. he economic ritique f congestionddressedperceivedcrisisn the distributionf goods, nd esultedn calls, roundedn FrederickWinslowTaylor's rinciples f scientific anagement,or moreefficientoca-tion of industry,or reductionsn building ensity, nd for improvementsntransportation.he social ritique f "blight" nd"slums" ddressedopula-tiondensity,iving onditions,ealth, nd henegativeocial ffects f realestatespeculation.y synthesizingheurban ritiquesf housingeformers,atricianplanners,ndTayloritemanagersnder heaegis f regionallanning xpertise,bothAdamsandMumford egitimizedndpopularizedn elitediscoursehatwoulddominatehe wentieth-centuryonceptionf themetropolis.Therewasessentialgreementetweenhe RPNY andRPAA over henature nd mpactof economicongestion.he concentrationf both ndustry


5/15

296 / ANDREW A. MEYERSand exchangen Manhattan roduced crisisn the distributionnd move-mentof goods ndworkers. he grid street ystem, equest f the Commis-sionersof 1811, could not absorb he increased utomobileand truck traffic,and hepublic ransit ystem ould equire astexpenditureso accommodategrowingdemands. s residence as pushed arther from the centerbycommerce nd rising and costs,Manhattan'smonopolyof commercial ndproductive ctivity equiredongerand ongercornmutes.hese nefficienciescontributedo higherprices or goods nd argernvestmentsn public nfra-structure. othgroups greedhat he solution ould equire he relocation findustry,eductionsn building ensity, nd mprovementsn transportation,althoughheywoulddifferon thenature ndextentof such deconcentration."

In Volume of the Regional urvey,ColumbiaUniversity conomistRobertMurrayHaigbased iscritique f congestionn the region ponwhathe poeticallyermedhe"friction f space"esultingrompoorly rrangedses[Haig,1927].Haig'smonographstablishedhe economicocusof theprojectwith lucidanalysisnd often elegant rose.His mandatewas to answer worelated uestions:) whatwas heeconomicasis f urbanconcentration?nd2) wheredo things belong"n urbanareas? rawingon an ecological odel,he analyzedhe"competitivetruggleor urbansites," opingn theprocesso"glimpse he outlinesof an economicallydeal pattem or plan." For thepurpose f surveyinghe placement nd movement f various ndustries,ebrokeup theregionnto hree oneshatcorrespondedoughlyo theChicagoSchoolmodel:1) Manhattan outhof 59thstreet, ) a twenty-milendustrialzone, 3) the outlyingarea.His surveyof the change n the numberofemployeesn variousndustriesn the hree ones uggestedo Haig hatwhilethe "advantagesf centralizedocus reundeniableor manyof the functionscarried n in the region," theractivitiesouldbe moreprofitably onductedoutside f thecenter. t the sameime hosendustrieshatby virtueof theirown diosyncrasiesrulybenefitedroma centralocation ereoftenpreventedfrom locatingor expandingn the center.Thus over-concentrationf alleconomicctivityn the centerwasproducing dragon both the productionand exchange f goods. his "frictionof space" esultedn part from badconcentrationcongestion)nd n part rombaddeconcentrationsprawl),ndwas manifestedn increased ornmutingime, costsof transportationnfra-structure,andprices, nd raffic, ll of whichwouldeventually ake heNewYork region n nefficient ieceof "productiveconomic achinery"nable ocompete ith "othermetropolitan achines."The social spect f theproblem f congestionecame cornerstonefregionalistdeology. peculationndpopulationressure ayhaveengenderedcongestionndblight, ut, n ParkandBurgess'iew, heseorces adbecomepart of the organic ocial tructure f the city.For Burgess,he intensity feconomicompetitionndsocial timulationn thecongestedetropolised oan increasen the destabili?.ingffectsof what he termed"mobility" he"change f movementn responseo a newstimulusr situation."


6/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 297The mobility f city ife,with ts ncreasen number nd ntensityof stimulation,ends nevitablyo confuse nd o demoralizeheperson. or an essentiallementn the moresand n personalmoralitys consistency,onsistencyf the type hat s naturalnthe socialcontrolof the primarygroup.Where mobility sgreatest,ndwhere n consequencerimary ontrolbreaks owncompletely,s n the zoneof deteriorationn the modemcity,theredevelop reasof demoralization,f promiscuity,nd vice[Buxgess,926,p. 69].In creating prescriptionor combatinghe socialaspects f blight,RPNY social lannerClarence erry ranslatedhe Chicago chool nalysis

into a radical xban orrective,he "Neighborhoodnit," whichguided hecommunitylanningtrategiesf both heRPNY andRPAA.Park adpointedto increased ependence n the automobile s a causeof the traditionalneighborhoodollapsePark, 934, p.21-39].t was hemost ivid,and iteral,example f themobility othdecried ndpraised y the Chicagoociologists.Perry'smajor nnovation asa strictseparationf through raffic rom localtraffic.The social ndpsychologicalobilitydentified y BuxgessecamenPerry'smodela puxely hysicalutomobilityndwas o be constrainedysegregatingegional,ocal,and neighborhoodar traffic. n the diagram f"Neighborhood nit Principles,"he highways nd arterialstreets reateboundarieso reinforce,ather hatdiffuse,he ntrospectiveharacterf theneighborhood.heneighborhoodspenetratedya few argeroads, ut hesetoo are nterrupted.n the internal treet ystem errysoughto segregatetraffic so as to defy the centripetalorce of automobile. he cul-de-sacs,interiorparksand T-intersectionsere devices esignedo protect heresidents' oralwell-beingromautomobilitynd rom heconcomitantocialillsof uxban ongestion.It wasbut a smallstep romPerry'sRPNY proposalso the RPAA'sactual esigns.ven hough errydidnotbecome n active ontributoro theRPAAuntil 1928, ustbeforeconstructionn Radbuxnegan,MumfordandStein cknowledgedheclose ffinitiesetweenhe"Radbumdea"andPerry'sneighborhoodnitconceptn theRPNY [Mumford, 989,p. 15;Stein, 989,p. 150].At Radbuxn,tein ndWrightsynthesizedhe nterior arks ndcul-de-sacsf Perry's lan o producesystemf overlappingetdistinct etworksof automobilendpedestrianirculation.he functionalegregationasmadecompletey underpasseshatenablededestrianso walk heentire evelop-mentwithout avingo crossrafficat streetevel.By adopting superblockstrategy,onsolidatinguildingotsonto arge locks hileminimizingheareadevotedo streets, teinandWrightwereable o create communityreenspace n the nteriorof theblocks or the residents'xclusivese.This nternal"privatepark," essentiallyn inversion f the GardenCity's external"greenbelt,"asshieldedromcar trafficby houses rrangedn cul-de-sac


7/15

298 / ANDREW A. MEYERSstreets. othPerryandAdamsheaped raise ponRadbttm, uggestinghat tshould e themodel or newdevelopmentutside f thecentral ity.The Taylorized City

The metropolis...isssentiallypieceof productiveconomicmachineryompeting ith othermetropolitan achines... heareaof New York and ts environs aybe likenedo the floorspace f a factory. egional lanning esignateshe bestuseofthisfloor space...Undulycongestedtreets hould e no moretoleratedhan heaisles f a factorympassablyammed ygoodsin process;actoriescatteredelterskelter hould e no moretoleratedhan departmentsf a factoryscatteredelterskelter[g, 1927,p. 18].Today onings oftenequated ithplanning,ut t wasnotwaysso.For manyof its earlypromoters,oning,he legal estrictionf the height,densitynduseof buildings,asseen smerely means,nda rather lumsymeans t that, o themoreambitiousndof comprehensiveityand egionalplanning. othAdamsandMumfordagreedhat zoningwasa blunt nstru-ment:Adamsnsistedhatzoningwasmerely "preliminarytepn planning."

Mumford aw oning s a last esort, ndoftenasan impedimento goodplanning. et in the finalanalysisothregionalistsmbracedhe principle ffunctionalegregationhat aybehind oning.ndeed,heir eliance pon hisprinciplewas their most enduring nd omnipresentontributiono laterplanningractice.lthough dams ouldwam hat"The1916 oningawwasreally a temporarymeasure asedon compromise"nd Mumfordwouldsecond uch oncerns,othshared desireo segregateunctionsn the searchorsafety, fficiency,ndcommunity.t is n the segregationf functionshat hetwo regionalist ovementschievedheir highestevelof consensus.heypromotedhe ordering f uses t all levels f planning:t the scale f theregion,hecity,and heneighborhoodAdams,929, . 165].The 1LPNY oughto establishunctionalones asedn human cologyto reif'yheChicagochool iagram,urning arkandBurgess'escriptionntoa prescription.one I, the "loop,"would ncludeWall Streetand MidtownManhattan. one II, the zoneof "transition" r "deterioration," ould ncludethe LowerEastSideandHarlem.The zoneof workingmen'someswouldincludeheouter oroughsndnorthem ewJerseyromNewarko FortLee,andsoon. Both hereality f existingettlementattems, nd,aswe shall eein the next section,heirownphilosophyoncerningecentralization,ouldpreventhe1LPNY lannersrom mposinghis dealwithoutmodification,utit exercisedprofoundnfluencepon hePlan.To makeroom for the commercialentralcity, Adamsproposedremoving ome eavymanufacturingrom he central usinessistricto anindustrial elt, basing is argumentsirectly ponHaig'sTaylorite alls or


8/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 299reducinghe friction f spaceo increaseroductivefficiency.his"zoningout"of industryas edsomeecent riticso blameheRegionallan or NewYork's ob oss hrough leindustrialization.The RPAAalso egregatedses nd, n theend,excludedndustryromtheirproposedatelliteities. lthough teinandWrightsoughto separatefunctionshroughheplanof Radbum,sopposedo using oningegislation,businessnd ndustry erestillcarefully xcludedrom the residentialone,which omprised ostof theplan.As Steinwould dmit ater,whilepayingipserviceo thenotionof GardenCity-stylentegrationf workand esidence,the RPAA planners new earlyon that Radburnwouldessentiallye abedroom suburb.

Steinexpresseddesireor functional eparationhatwouldbecomestaple f planning iscourse.ndeedRadbum epresentedn attempt o gobeyondegislatedoning whichafterallcouldbe changed ith he stroke f apen to build unctionalegregationnto heveryplan tself. he roads,anes,andcul-de-sacsf Radbum ouldserve o otherpurposehan hat for whichtheyweredesigned.either henovelty or mportof this nnovation ere oston Stein:Specializedighways ere n their nfancyn the U.S.A.at thetime hatRadbumwasconceived...o planor build oads or aparticular se and no other use requireda predeterminedderisiono make pecializedsepermanent...hatwascontraryto thefundamentalsf Americaneal-estateambling... oneoftherealtors,nd ewof thecityplanners hoacceptedoning stheir practical eligion,seemed o have faith enough n thepermanency f purelyresidential se to plan streets o servesolelyhatuse Stein, 989,p. 47].The argumentsor thiscompartmentalizationf the public ealmwere

basedn communitarianalues. he RPAA planners oughthe mostcompletesegregationf circulationn an attempto defend n ntrospectivendcooper-ativecommunity gainsthe ravages ot only of mobility,but of industrialcapital ndthe commodificationf the land. n thissensehe Radbum lanrepresentedhe most ntriguing onvergencef the RPAA and RPNY: itborrowedromPerry's eighborhoodnit heequationf throughrafficwithdisruptive obility ndthe desireo specializehe roadsystemo reinforceneighborhoodentimentnd ocalsocial ontrol.During the RenaissanceeonardoDaVincihad proposed similarrationalizationf urbanchaosn a sketch e drew or a second-storyidewalkfor Florence. owever,hesewentiethenturyroposalsepresenthegreatestchallengeo traditional rbanismroposed y regionalists:he separationffunction t every cale,hefundamentalismembermentf thepublic ealmnservicef twodramaticallyifferent gendas.t is bynoweasyo recognizehepartsof the nvisibleegionality hatwere ealized.he critique f congestionandcall or segregationf uses ecame taplesf postwar lanning,sexpressed


9/15

300 / ANDREW A. MEYERSin urbanrenewaland suburbanization.he removalof industry rom thecenter, he limited-accessighway,lumclearance,nd he cul-de-sacereallingredientsn therecipe f sprawl nd hepostindustrialedge ity."Thiswastheconcreteegacy f theregionaliststheprojectsnd deashatbecame artof the mainstreamonceptionf the city.But an investigationf the RPNY'splan or Hackensackeadowshowshat he egacy f decentralizationswenowknowt wasbutoneof many oads roposedy he egionalists.HackensackMeadows,Radbum,and the DecentralizedCity

As a matterof fact, he [Regional]lan nvolveswo contradictorysetsof proposals.ne s for the building f largeneighborhoodunits and even gardencities n the suburban arts of themetropolitanegion. he other s for theconcentrationf trafficand ransportationndhighbuildingsn thecentral istrict elowFifty-ninthStreet n Manhattan, nd the fillingup of the openareas n the metropolitan istrict...to ontinue he congestionand o preservehe andvalueshathavebeen ounded pon hiscongestionMumford, 929,p. 242].Conventionalhistoriesof regionalism,ollowing Mumford's lead,

mistakenly rgue hat the RPNY favoredsprawl o satisfy uburbanandspeculatorsnd he deindustrializationf Manhattano serve omtom real-estatenterests,nd hatAdams' seof the erm"decentralization"asmerelya polite coverup or a desire o drive blue-collarobs out of New York.Mumfordsaw he RPNY distinction etween oodcommercialoncentrationandbad esidentialongestionsa double tandardetwingheRPNY's inan-cial masters.What he, and manyobserversince, ailed o seewas that theRegional lancontained clearandconsistent odel,obscurednlyby thescope ndcollaborativeature f theproject nd he distaste f its director orreductive aradigms.hat model, f a re-industrializedegion f compactixed-usecommunitiesnchored y New York City,wasa radical lternativeo thesprawl nddeindustrializationlready pparent n the horizon. he differencebetweenhe regionalmodels f the RPNY andRPAA canbe summed p inthe uxtapositionf the unfortunatelypaqueerms diffuseeconcentration"and "decentralization."

In Volume I' of the Regional lan,"Buildinghe City,"Adamsurgedthat"the ermscentralization'nd decentralization'hould e avoided s heylead o confusionf thought." he realconcern f thePlanwas he"friction fspace,"dentifiedn Haig'seconomic nalysis, hich Adamsexpandedoencompassoth henegativeocial onsequencesf mobility nd heeconomicinefficienciesf unplannedecentralization.ust scongestionadpositive ndnegative onsequencessocial ragmentationnd liberation so too diddecentralization.dams, n a quiet dig at Mumford,decried hose"socialphilosophershosegospels 'decentralization,'o matterhow unplanned r


10/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 301haphazard"Adams, 929a, . 34].For Adams, ecentralizationould elievethe socialnfirmities ndeconomicnefficienciesroduced y congestion,utit could lsocreate ewproblems f itsown.The friction f spaceepresented"a greater egree f separationeasuredn terms f time, ost, iscomfortndfatigue...betweenomes ndplaces f work,whichs njuriouso both ivingconditions nd business"Adams, 929b,p. 310]. Inefficientor impracticaldecentralizationas ustasdangeroussunplannedoncentration.he closestAdams vercame o conciselytatinghe Plan's asic trategyo combathisfriction amen whatappearso be a critique f Mumford'smpreciserose:

The term "decentralization" is a misnomer unless the intentbehind t is to entirely reakup compact ommunities,oweverwell planned nd arranged... n indiscriminaterocess f so-called decentralization"ill be of littlebenefit.What appearsobe wanted is:First Diffused e-centralizationf industry ith the objects flesseninghe density f congestedenters nd of creating ewcenters.,YecondDiffusionof residencento compactesidentialeigh-borhoodshxoughouthewholeurban egionntegratedith heindustrial sections so as to reduce distances between homes andplaces f work.Third- Sub-centralizationf businessoarrangedsto providethe maximum of convenience or residents Adams, 1929a,pp. 14%150].Contraryo the picture f indiscriminatexpulsionf industry aintedby hiscritics, dams' ision or the Regional lanwasof highly electivendcarefully onsideredndustrialelocation. damswasskepticaloncerninghebenefits f manufacturingispersion,nlesst addressedhe"friction f space"

by integrating ew industrial enterswith residences,ransportation,ndrecreation. nd contraryo the Plan's llustrations,endered y HarveyWileyCotbert's rchitectureommittee, damsargued gainst total removalofmanufacturingrom he core.The rezoning e did encourageasdirectedoestablishingn ndustrialhalfmoon" n whatwouldbe Zone II of thePark-Burgessiagram,he areaof workers' omes, sa means f overcominghecombined roblems f highManhattanandcosts,he transport urdleof theHudsonRiver,and he "friction"of working-classommuting. ather hanablindreification f the Chicago chool ull's-eye, dams isionwasa complexcompositionf industrial,esidential,nd ecreationalwedges"hatcutacrossthe concentricones, ndengenderedhe "inter-penetrationf all partsof theRegionhatbringshepopulationn convenientontact ithemploymentndeducationenters nd ecreationalpportunities"Adams, 929a, . 151].Unlike atercritics,Mumfordwas n general ccordwithAdamson thedesirabilityf moving ome ndustry ut of Manhattan. is general omplaintwas hat he Regional lanneitherdecentralizedndustry nough or called or


11/15

302 / ANDREW A. MEYERSa concomitant decentralization of commercial businesses and residences. FortheRPAA, ndustrialecentralizationasnot a means f reducinghe"frictionof space" ut ratheronlyone strategyor implementingn "industrialounterrevolution...topreadhereal ncome f industry y decentralizingndustry."By removinghehighcostof advertising,roundents, verheadand,asSteinwouldadmit,of union abor tself), essprofitwouldgo toward he "papervalue"of an ndustry,ndmore o theworker,whosewages ouldothenvisestagnate hilecapital alues oared. heseargumentsanbe tracedback oChase ndhiscall or localproductionndconsumptionf goods. bsentMarxistcritique,ndignation ver the concentrationf wealth n a class asdisplacednto heconcentrationf wealthn pace. ithout ttackingheclassstructure hat producedsuch nequities,he RPAA sought o rectify thesituationnvironmentally.hysicalecentralizationouldengender oreevendistributionf wealth ndpower Mumford, 976b, p. 92-93].At first glance he RPNY GeneralPlan might appear o be aprescriptionor sprawl, ith tsundifferentiatedraymass f residentialse. twaszoned into business,ndustrial, esidential, nd recreational reas,but thezonesproduced ingers hat stretch nto other zones. t was not a merereification f the Chicago chool ull's-eyeut a combinationf "wedges,belts, ndnodes"hatsoughto synthesizehebestattributesf congestionefficiency,rbanity,onveniencewith thoseof diffusion:conomy,pace,andaccesso nature.Whereashe RPAApromoted ecentralizationsa meansof evisceratinghecentral ity,which heydisparageds he"dinosaurity,"or"necropolis,"PNY planners aw egional re-centralization"s a meansofsustaininghe ndustrial etropolisnd estructuringheregiono supportt.These ifferencesremost pparentn fundamentalivergencesn thenatureof satellite ities,as exemplified y Hackensack eadows nd Radbumandregionalransportation.If the"Satelliteity"was he ruitof Ebenezeroward's arden ity,thenbothMumford's ndAdams' ersionsepresentomethingf a fall fromgrace.Even while retaininghe rhetoricof the GardenCity, the RPAA"decentfists"ad rom hebeginninghosen path o reform hatcontradictedHoward'sisionn significantespects.hileHoward'sSocial ity" equireda largecentral ity, he RPAAregion id not.The RPAA plannersoleratedlargercitiesonly as an imperfect tepon the way to true decentralization.Within the SocialCity network he satellite arden ity was to houseandemploy 2,000working lassesidentsndencompassesidence,ndustry,ndcivic unctionshatwere oned ut ntegralo thewhole. he RPAA/Radburnmodel, ased pon heautomobilendobsessiveegregationf uses, rojecteda middle-classopulationf up to 100,000 ndexiledndustryo adjacent"employmententers." ivic unctions erealsosuppressedn favorof anintemalizationf Howard's urroundingreenbelt.The RPAA satellite asessentiallycompletenversion f Howard'sdea.Defenders f the RPAA'spositions hatof naive topiansoint o theonset f theGreatDepressionstheexplanationor Radburn's hitecollar,middle-classuburbanharacter:he


12/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 303economicollapsereventedhe CHC from attractingndustry ndworkersand from purchasingand for a greenbelt. ut, as Steincandidly dmits,Radbumwould neverhavebeenaffordableor the working-classnd wasplanned rom the start o be predominanfiy,f not exclusively,esidential.sMumfordhimself oted,%vithoutn industrialase he garden ity s onlyafancyname or a suburb"Mumford, 932a, . 242].Adams'RPNY proposalsor satellite rieswere closer o Howard'sSocialCity ideal n severalmportant espects. he Hackensack eadows,today he ocation f a sports omplexndan "edge ity"of highways,ffices,warehousesnd solatedondominia,as he ast arge arcel f undevelopedlandnearManhattan.t was he only nstance hereAdams ermitted isdesignershe luxuryof working n virgin and or virginweftand), ndtheirproposalor an industrialommunitys a glimpse f the RPNY'sunfulfilledideal.The plan called or the creation f "a community here ndustrial,residentialnd ecreationalreas redistributedn wellbalancedroportions"[Adams, 929a,pp. 546-547].Of a total of over 30,000acres,over 22,000would be reserved or residential se,almost4,000 for new industrial reas,4,400 or parks, nd 550 for business. plananda series f fascinatingthumbnailketchesllustratedn ntegratedatelliteityof neighborhoodnits,businesses,arks,and industriesonnectedy overlappingystems fparkways,anals,ndwalking aths Adams,929a, . 327;c, p. 569].Theneighborhoodserebased n thePadbum rincipleutwere asilyccessibleto adjacentfficesnd actoriesypublicransportation.lthoughdams asreluctanto publish pecificroposalsor satelliteities, s speculatorsoulddriveup prices eforeandassemblyouldbegin, e overcamehis eluctanceandvigorouslyromotedheHackensacklan, or t wasa plan hatexpressedthecoreof his hinking bout ecentralizafion:

NewYork...[is] rowingoo muchn the ditecrionf havingseparateistrictsevotedo industry,usinessnd esidence..4goodoninglanaims t the egregationf hesehreeses,utnot othedegreehatnterfiresdthhe onvenientelationfoneo he ther...Whatis calleda well balanced ommunitys one in which hesefunctionsreso ehted s o producehehighestfficiency,hemostwholesomeiving onditions,nd hegreatestconomynworkand ravelitalicsdded]Adams,929a, p.340-341].Adams awhewell-plannedegionsanassemblyf "belts,"wedges,"and nerveenters."edgesould alanceircumferentialnd adial evelop-

ment o permitwhatwewould oday all"mixed-useommunities"hatcouldprovideor heemploymentnd ecreationaleedsf a residentialopulation.Thissystemould ecomplementedyanarray f "nerve enters"n whichcertain mountof nodalconcentrationouldpermit"the industries,heresidencesnd heculturalnd ecreationalacilitiesf a [satellite]ity to]beinterspersedithoneanother."hemajor xceptionas o be n the ealm ffinance nd entertainment,hichwere o be the exclusiveurview f


13/15

304 / ANDREW A. MEYERSManhattan.Sucha scheme ought o balance he efficiencies f functionalsegregationith thoseof integration, hile reserving ertainactivitiesor aregional entern the central ity. t wasessentiallymetropolitanizedersionof Howard'sSocialCity.The RPNY's Hackensacklanwasnot a merereificafion f real-estateinterests;ather t offereda meansof sustaininghe concentrationhatsupportedurban culturewhile mitigating ts worst attributes, radicalalternativeo whatwouldbecomehedominant aradigmf post-war prawl.The RPAAvision f a webof functionallyegregatedatelliteriessoughthedismembermentf urbanitytself, n favorof a romanticuralutopia.Eachchallengedhemarket s t existed, ut for differingeasonshatmaybe tracedto the contrastinggendasf professionalegitimizafionndculturalegenera-tion. The forcesdriving he transformationf New York wouldborrow heRPAA'santi-metropolitanhetoric f dispersalnd the RPNY'svisions f acityof towers o produce "cityof tomorrow" rivenby downtown fficeandsuburbanesidentialpeculation.enerallyt isAdams'RPNY, asa result f itsgrandiose isapplicafionn the handsof RobertMoses, hathasbeendeemedmoresuccessfulnd hereforeeceiveshecredit ndcriticismor theregionalcity hatresulted. hileborrowingelectivelyromboth, he newvision hatwouldemerge ascloser t heart o thatof Mumford,Stein, nd heRPAA.AsJaneJacobs stutely ointedout, the RPAA planners ere aptly abeled he"Decentfists" for their desire to define all that was urban as bad and to thin outthe greatcities t all costs Jacobs,961,pp. 19-21].Not onlydid the RPAAcontribute pecific ecentralizingeviceso the planning rofession,uchasthesuperblock,ul-de-sac,hefunctionaleparationf trafficanduse,and hetownlessighway, ut most mportantlyt popularizedhe anti-metropolitanmantra of decentralization.Conclusion:City of Tomorrow

In 1939designer ormanBelGeddes oncoctedfancifulmodelof the"Cityof Tomorrow"or the NewYork World's airwhich maginedities ftowers et n a landscapef highwaysndsuburbs.he modeldrewupon heregionalistdeashathadpercolatedhroughheeitgeistincehepublicationfthe Regional lan and the constructionf Radburn. et to the extent hat itwas ealized fterWorldWar I, theCityof Tomorrowwouldnot be thevisionof eithernterwaregionalisms,utrather heapplicationf regionalistdeasntheservicef other gendas.heproposalsf the egionalistserestatic. heywere dealdries,whethermaginedy culturalritics r pragmaticrofessionals,requiringhe engines f speculationr governmentalctivismo make hempartof NewYork's eality,n which heywould ppearn forms hatwouldnotbe recognizableo theircreators.dams'egional ecentralizationithout heintegrationf useswouldbecome prawl. he RPAA'sanfi-metropolitanismshom of its socio-economicadicalism ould egitimize white light."Thefatalism f the Chicago chool's rganicmodelstripped f the desire or


14/15

THE INVENTION OF THE REGIONAL CITY, 1923-1929 305ameliorationndergirdshe presumednevitabilityf today's gatehousesuburbs." he dominance f "congestion"nd "blight" n planning ndhousing iscourseoulddriveunprecedentedederalnterventionsn roadbuilding, lumclearance,nd urbanrenewal.Hypertrophic entralbusinessdistricts, edroom uburbs,ndcul-de-sacsouldall be born of an increasingreliance n functionaloningwithout recognitionf its imitations.he mostintriguingmission,n bothpostwar hnning racticendplanning istory,sthe RPNY's call for re-centralization.

The RPNY's "diffuse e-centralization"as a potentially ropheticalternativeo sprawl nddeindustrialization,balance etweenocalsegrega-tionand egionalntegrationf uses, etweenoning ndplanning,f youwill,in which the bull's-eye f the ChicagoSchoolwas mitigated y Adams'"wedges"o overcomehe "frictionof space"hat would esult rom eitherexcessiveecentralizationr concentration.t wasa prescriptiono sustainhemetropolis hilemediatinghegrowing patial onflicts ngenderedy corpor-ate capital, peculation,nd echnologicalhange.n thissensehe RPAA wasmost"successful"n the eventual ominancef its anti-metropolitanhetoricand ts interpretationf the region s a crucibleor radical iffusion. eforethis splitwas explicit,t appearedhat the well-connectedegionalistserepoised o realize hek crystal ities, ut a depression,orldwar,andunprec-edented hangesn America's olitical conomy ouldphce hek dreams nhold. Perhaps clearerunderstandingf the alternativesatent n regionalplanning, nd a government ore willingand able to apply t, might haveproduced city closer o Adams'or Mumford's ision.As we look out uponthe contemporaryndscape f homelesshess,uburbanridlock, hronic rbanfiscal risis, nda disappearingmalenvironmentt is temptingo wonder.norder o addresshese ontemporaryoncernst isnecessaryo understandhattheyare not the nevitableesultof natural orces, ut the product f humanwill,of choices adeunder he nfluence f historicallyonstraineddeas.ReferencesAdams, homas, d.,TheRegionallanofNevYorkandtsEnvirons:oh.-7, (NewYork,1929).Burgess,rnest, TheGrowthof theCity," n R. Park,E. Burgess,ndR. McKenzie, ds.,TheCity Chicago,925).--, ed.,TheUrban orarauniyChicago,926).Calvino,talo, nvisibleitiesNewYork,1963).Fairfield,ohnD., TheMysteriesf heGreat ity Columbus,993).Haig,RobertMurray,MajorEconomicactorsn Metropolitanrowth ndArrangement,"in TheRegionalurffy fNevYork, olL (NewYork,1927).Hall, Peter,O'ties fToraorrovOxford,1988).Howard, benezer, arden'IiesofToraorrovCambridge,A, 1965).Jacobs,ane,TheDeath nd_aofGreat meffcanitiesNewYork,1961).Kunsfler,ames oward, HomeFromNowhere," tlantic onth September,996), 358.Mumford, ewis, ThePlanof NewYork," n TheNevRepubc,1 (15June 932a), 21126., "ThePlanof New York," n TheNevRepubc,1 (22June1932b), 46154., "Regional lanning."n CarlSussman,d.,Planninghe ourth igration:heNeglected


15/15

306 / ANDREW A. MEYERSVision f hePgionallanningssodationfAmeticaCambridge,A, 1976a)., "Regions To Live In." in Sussman,arl,ed.,PlanningheFourth igration:heNeglectedision f heRgionallanningssoationfAmericaCambridge,A, 1976b).

, "Introduction."n C. Stein. ovantNevovnsrAm#icaCambridge,A, 1989).Norton,Charles yer,Proposed ublic tatemento be ssued y theExecutive ommitteeof the AdvisoryPlan Commission.eprintedn a letter from CharlesNorton toFrederic elano,Nov. 1921.RPAArchives, rochLibrary, ornell2688, Box43.Park,Robert ., "TheCity:Suggestionsorthe nvestigationf HumanBehaviorn theUrbanEnvironment,"n R. Park, . Burgess,ndR. McKenzie,ds., heCi (Chicago,925)., "IndustrialatiguendGroupMorale,"n AmericanournalfSodologNovember1934),298.Perry, larence,TheNeighborhoodnit." n TheRegionalurvfyfNev York, olVII (NewYork,1929).Sage oundationomes, Forest illsGardens,"romotionalrochure,909.Stein,Clarence,Dinosaur ites."n CarlSussman,d.,PlanningheFourth igration:heNeglectedision f heRgionallanningssodationfAmericaCambridge,976)., TowardNewTowns orAmericaCambridge,A, 1989).

Documents

Invisible Cities Lewis Mumford, Thomas Adams, and the Invention of the Regional City, 1925-1929