The nature of America's cities has been utterly transformed since the 1920s. The compact, mixed-use development of the 19th century city stands in stark contrast to the sprawling, segregated-use development of the more recently built environment. These changes, although viewed positively by many, have been increasingly criticized since the 1960s. Much of this criticism is concentrated in two schools of thought. The first, which I shall call with Roberta Brandes Gratz "Urban Husbandry," (Gratz 1994, pp. 147-174; Gratz 1998, pp. 59-83) was a response on the part of urban dwellers to changes in their cities; the second was a new movement in planning and architecture, dubbed by Peter Katz and others the "New Urbanism," (Katz, p. ix) focusing on the need to design for community, pedestrianism, and to some extent compatibility with the natural environment. Although these schools have a good deal in common, it is useful to discuss the differences between them and the discourse between the two schools.

These schools both originated as critiques of modern-day planning and urban development; hence, it is worth spending some time on how today's cities formed. Four major influences on today's urban development are notable: the suburban movement, new transportation technologies, Modernism in architecture, and zoning regulations.

The Formation of Sprawl
Urban Husbandry
New Urbanism
Similarities and Differences

Thesis Home
Previous    Next