journal of urban history 2005 stephenson 887 98

http://juh.sagepub.com/Journal of Urban History

http://juh.sagepub.com/content/31/6/887.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0096144205276991

2005 31: 887Journal of Urban HistoryBruce Stephenson

Review Essay: Urban Environmental History: The Essence of a Contradiction

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Urban History Association

can be found at:Journal of Urban HistoryAdditional services and information for

http://juh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://juh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Aug 4, 2005Version of Record >>

at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on October 24, 2014juh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on October 24, 2014juh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://juh.sagepub.com/

http://juh.sagepub.com/content/31/6/887.citation

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://uha.udayton.edu/

http://juh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://juh.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://juh.sagepub.com/content/31/6/887.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



10.1177/0096144205276991 REVIEWJOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / September 2005Stephenson / URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY

REVIEW ESSAY

URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORYThe Essence of a Contradiction

MATTHEW GANDY, Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New YorkCity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, pp. xi, 344, illustrations, notes, in-dex, $34.95 cloth.

KARL HAGLUND, Inventing the Charles River. Foreword by Renata vonTsharner. Published in Cooperation with the Charles River Conservancy.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, pp. xi, 493, illustrations, appendix,glossary, notes, index, $49.95 cloth.

DAVID NAGUIB PELLOW, Garbage Wars: The Struggle for EnvironmentalJustice in Chicago. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, pp. ix, 234, illustra-tions, appendix, notes, references, index, $24.95 cloth.

Urban environmental history seemingly examines the study of contradic-tion, but the contrast between city and nature presents a generative hope, theideal of balancing civilization between its elemental forces. Lewis Mumfordconfronted this challenge by plumbing the past to fashion a vision of an urbanculture dedicated to Aristotle’s ideal of the “good life.” If his overt morality hasnot aged particularly well, with his first book, The Story of Utopias,1 Mumfordcast the beginning of a transcendent arc that still measures those following inhis stead.

“Man is fallen, nature is erect, and serves as a differential thermometer,”Emerson wrote, “detecting the presence or absence of the divine sentiment inman.”2 Mumford, an intellectual scion of the Concord sage, also employed na-ture but with a more evolved, ecological bent to gauge the aim and aspirationsof his generation’s flight into modernity. The utopianism permeating the1920s enveloped the young urbanist, but in contrast to the speculative madnessthat colored so much of the period, he mined past treasures to present a visionof equanimity. In The Golden Day, Mumford rhapsodized, like Emerson, overthe “vast designs and expectations” his country stirred. Yet the “laws and insti-tutions” that translated these hopes into reality must, quoting Emerson, “existin some proportions to the majesty of Nature.”3

In the 1920s, Mumford saw little of the divine in the nation’s chaotic urbanexpansion. The urbanization phenomenon constituted a “kind of barbarism,”

887

JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY, Vol. 31 No. 6, September 2005 887-898DOI: 10.1177/0096144205276991© 2005 Sage Publications

at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on October 24, 2014juh.sagepub.comDownloaded from


he wrote in 1926. It covered the landscape with a “machine-made fabric, in-creasingly standardized, regimented, characterless, spreading outward fromthe metropolis by a process seemingly as automatic as the spread of grassland,forests, and jungles in nature.” Trading natural processes for urban infrastruc-ture measured progress, but in return, “Traffic and Commerce are the names ofthe presiding deities,” Mumford wrote, “human beings . . . merely units, de-signed to run or use elaborate mechanical devices.”4

Mumford was hardly a Luddite. Advances in science and technology of-fered untold possibilities to construct a new urban civilization, but these Pro-methean forces required a guiding vision that charted limits as well as desires.To this end, Mumford joined a sterling array of young, public intellectuals inthe Regional Planning Association of America. Mumford crafted the group’sphilosophic template, advocating regionalism as a means to direct modern citybuilding around the constructs of nature and to secure the good life. As a land-scape engineered to the dimensions of the “goods life” took shape, his criti-cism sharpened as he predicted the rise of a robotic race, cut off from natureand living to consume. Future “cities of parasites peopled by office workerswho perform elaborate tasks with red tape and by a growing well-to-do class,divorced from practical responsibilities, whose chief economic function iswhat Mr. Thorstein Veblen has called the performance of leisure. Social para-sitism and economic waste in turn lead to a lapse of function, with a growingamount of vice and crime and physical debilitation, if not disease.”5

This prescient forecast appeared in Mumford’s keynote address to the 1927National City Planning Conference. He challenged his audience to jettisontheir increasingly mechanical conception of the city for a more balanced ap-proach. Cities constituted more than machines slated for production; theywere organisms capable of evolution and reproduction. Ignoring the basic bi-ology of existence, he warned, offered a dismal replay of history. Past civiliza-tions pushing “limitless growth and expansion” collapsed once “parasitic”megalopolises passed “the limits of functional size and use.” Periods of exces-sive growth were followed by ecological deterioration, water shortages, cropfailures, and rising indices of disease. Political and economic chaos ensued,fostering the demise of urban life and societal breakdown. “If the ultimate fateof such megalopolitan civilizations in the past has always been to turn its lead-ing cities into Necropolises, or cities of the dead, it would be naive to think,”Mumford warned, “that the ingenuities of engineering can avert this fate.”6

History, Mumford believed, also held examples to guide developmentalong more sustaining lines. The garden-city experiments in England, whichadopted the form of the historic English village, offered a prime case. Boundedby agricultural greenbelts, entwined within the landscape, and centered on“essential civic functions,” Letchworth and Welwyn were distinct alternativesto, what we term suburban sprawl, “the speculative subdivisions that have pre-maturely turned good truck gardens into a confused mass of small individualownerships that cannot be rationally planned into any sort of neighborly

888 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / September 2005



unity.” The garden city’s balanced venue offered a model to “master,”Mumford concluded, “if we are to escape the regimentation and the paralysisthat now threatens us.”7

The garden city’s physical form helped tether Mumford’s soaring prose andcatalyze his genius. In the next decade, he immersed himself in urban history,exploring the Athenian ideal. In 1938, his seminal work, The Culture of Cities,garnered national acclaim and procured his first work as a planning consultant.He garnered choice assignments in Honolulu and the Pacific Northwest, wherehis work in Portland proved especially noteworthy. He recommended green-ing the city’s core and directing new growth into a series of interconnectedgreenbelt towns designed around the fertile contours of the Willamette Valley.Besides protecting one of the nation’s most bountiful and beautiful settings,investing in “urban rehabilitation” and garden-city design would “obviate thegrandiose engineering experiments to which we are all by sheer inertia andfashion, too easily committed.”8

Mumford’s plan remained fallow until the early 1970s when the “OregonExperiment” turned Portland into a Mecca of growth management.9 Mumfordprovided an essential vision and historic validation (along with the Olmstedbrothers) for the nation’s most comprehensive effort to craft a regional city thatreflects the beauty and fertility of the surrounding landscape. “Portland is abetter city,” Neil Goldschmidt, former mayor and governor of Oregon, stated,“thanks in large part to the wisdom and foresight of Lewis Mumford.”10

Mumford’s mix of historical analysis and cultural criticism produced plau-sible solutions to a series of increasingly intractable problems, placing thescope of his work in conflict with today’s theory-laden tomes. For urban histo-rians, Mumford’s pursuit of the past remains vibrant but, some argue, anti-quated to the profession’s current schema. In his eloquent opus Cities in Civili-zation, Peter Hall casts Mumford as a “brilliant polemic journalist, but not ascholar.” Nor does he “share the Mumfordian view that the great city isdoomed.” Hall claims Mumford failed to understand the great city’s generativeenvironment because “he lacked a long-term direct everyday knowledge of thequality of life in them.”11 This reasoning seems more pique than point of schol-arship, especially since Mumford spent his first forty years in New York Cityexperiencing, as defined by Hall, a “golden age” of urban life. Mumford’s ownvoice is even more telling: “I was a child of the city,” he wrote, “New York ex-erted a greater and more constant influence on me than did my family.”12

Slights aside, Hall follows Mumford’s lead and constructs theory to explainthe culture of cities. His desire to reveal the essence of the “innovative milieu”of great cities in their golden ages is noteworthy, but who is to say that devisingan intellectual mold to capture such a mercurial substance is not pure polem-ics? “It should be evident that the enterprise of theorizing ‘collective creativ-ity’is as intrinsically dubious,” Ray Porter writes, “as the attempt to explain in-dividual creativity in terms of birth order or zodiac sign.” Cities in Civilizationis an amalgamation of erudite analysis, a book following in the Mumford tradi-

Stephenson / URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY 889



tion. If this work is burdened with, what Porter calls, “the fashionable aca-demic preoccupation with theory,” it is the root end of that theory that sepa-rates Hall the academician from Mumford the public intellectual.13

Launching theoretical critiques into ever-more-sophisticated flights maybreach new ground, but these otherworldly efforts seldom illuminate solutionsto the issues melding the past and present. “Most of our most serious environ-mental problems start right here at home, and if we are to solve these problems,we need an environmental ethic,” William Cronon contends, “that will tell usas much about using nature as about not using it.”14 This, of course, is LewisMumford’s essential gift; he wrote history for life’s sake not for the sake ofwriting history. This dose of reality also infuses Mumford’s interpretation ofhistory with a certain timeless quality.

Mumford feared the megalopolis because it would bleed the ecologicalhealth from its surrounding region with technological fixes until this unbal-anced system collapsed under its own weight. It is the hoary appetite of the par-asitic city that Cronon revealed in Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the GreatWest, a work that set a standard for environmental historians.15 Los Angeles’sendless desire to draw water from the hinterlands has also provided fodder forhistorians and Hollywood. A more sordid tale than Roman Polanski’s China-town is hardly thinkable, but Mike Davis’s account of the increasing frequencyof firestorms on the Malibu coast offers material for a sequel to Day of the Lo-cust. The government subsidies underwriting the luxury housing located inone of the earth’s most pyrotechnic environments could almost be passed of asSouthern California extravagance, except that a plan by the Olmsted brothersoffered a sustainable alternative. Davis recounts this episode in The Ecology ofFear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster,16 while Greg Hise and Wil-liam Deveraell devoted a monograph to the Olmsted vision in Eden by Design:The 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los Angles Region.17

Eden by Design joins a growing literature tallying the Olmsted revival initi-ated two decades ago. As our understanding of the Olmsteds and Mumford isenhanced, urban environmental history is clarifying past issues while enlight-ening present decision making. This is the promise presented in MatthewGandy’s Concrete and Clay, but as he warns, combining “ecological ideaswith urban analysis is fraught with difficulty. If we want to incorporate the in-dependent agency of nature into our analysis, we need to be sensitive to theway in which biophysical processes are mediated through human cultures: ex-planation in the physical and biological sciences is rooted in metaphors thatare social and cultural in origin, even if the phenomena under investigationhave an ontological status of their own” (p. 11).

Theorists will enjoy this semiotic extravaganza as Gandy delves into “radi-cally reworking the relationship between nature and culture” to “produce moreprogressive forms of urban society” (p. 5). This endeavor eschews “a crudelymaterialist interpretation of urban process: the focus here is on the mutual con-stitutive relations between nature as biophysical fabric and the symbolic




power of nature as cultural representations of imaginary landscapes” (p. 7).Neither crude nor materialist, the author incorporates a bevy of postmodern,poststructuralist interpretations, shifting and collating epistemologies,ontologies, and visions of the dialectical from Marxian and Lefebrivan per-spectives. This task is accomplished, however, at the cost of teleology. In theend, Gandy’s critique of capitalism fails to counter the “brutal logic” (p. 45) ofurban expansion with any tangible, progressive forms.

Concrete and Clay is not without merit. A heterogeneous mix of case stud-ies traces the nature of New York from its premodern origins to current issuesof environmental justice. The city’s struggle to develop an adequate water sup-ply is told effectively, from the digging of the first public well in 1658 to har-nessing “the hydrological cycle of the whole region” (p. 23). The demand forpotable water “necessitated a transformation of the physical landscape over avast area” (p. 45). The author mixes a compendium of political machinations,engineering feats, and cultural criticism to explain this change. Unfortunately,the accompanying biophysical changes in the environment receive scant no-tice, leaving important questions unanswered: how was the hydrologic regimealtered, what was the effect on agriculture and lumber, and how did habitatschange over time? Rather than chronicle ecological change, the consequencesof urban growth are revealed in “the disjuncture between the mobility of capi-tal and the extent of fixed capital represented by past investment in the built en-vironment” (p. 53). While neo-Marxian critiques may explain the transferenceof capital, they do not suffice for an environmental history using originalsources to explain economic and ecological change. Running history throughprescribed theoretical filters may enlighten academic constructs, but it can re-cast the obvious in such dense permutations that the author obfuscates ratherthan enlightens current issues.

For the past decade, upstate development pressures have threatened thelong-term health of New York City’s 2,000-square-mile watershed. Withoutgrowth-control measures, securing future water supplies will require expen-sive technology to bring drinking water online from such untenable sources asthe Hudson River. New York is pioneering design solutions to its watershed is-sue by clustering development in “Progressive forms.” If such “smart growth”is cliché, it still encapsulates a rich historical tradition that can enlighten ongo-ing experiments. In Concrete and Clay, however, planning is analyzed throughthe lens of theory to produce a better process not a better design. “The mostpromising solutions to environmental degradation may lie in the developmentof a more sophisticated public sphere through which new forms of democratdecision-making can emerge in preference to any lurch toward the ecologicalHobbesianism of greater control, which may prove in any case to be fiscallyand ideologically untenable” (p. 74). The author’s desire to craft “a more so-phisticated public sphere” seemingly follows “Olmsted’s conception of thecivic realm,” which Gandy defines as “the Enlightenment preoccupation withthe refinement of taste” (p. 92). Imparting sophistication and refinement to the




benighted public is undoubtedly paternalistic, but perhaps it is a rational re-sponse to the Hobbesian threat. By contrast, Olmsted realized that only gov-ernment could restrain the chaotic flow of speculative real estate and procure avital public good. Central Park is an amazing accomplishment of Americandemocracy, given that the opposition “was principally by wealthy propertyowners who argued that the cost to taxpayers was too high” (p. 85). Imaginehow such a proposal would fly today, yet Olmsted, and reformers of his ilk,held to a line of civic virtue that would define Lincoln at his best. “We saw howCentral Park was never an anticapitalist oasis” (p. 233), Gandy writes. Per-haps, but the more important story is that an urban democracy could craft apublic arcadia in the midst of the world’s most commercial city. Olmsted sawthe urgency to design a “sanitary institution” where harried New Yorkers couldrecreate themselves.18 “But I’m not sure if even he could imagine,” WitoldRybczynski writes, “just how precious its 843 acres would be to a city grownunimaginably large and dense.”19 Central Park is precious because it memori-alizes a brief historical moment when the democratic process resolved theseemingly irreconcilable contradiction between private profit and collectiveneed to create a masterpiece of living art.

Solving the ecological problems intrinsic to the twenty-first-century city re-quires a similar infusion of vision and virtue. As Gandy contends imposingcontrols to protect vital public resources is fraught with risk in a capitalist soci-ety, but humans, like all species, operate within a series of natural limits. “Theknowledge of power must coexist with the knowledge of limits,” Daniel Bellconcluded in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, “This is after all, themost enduring truth about the human condition.”20

A generation later, the contradictions of capitalism abound as our Faustiannature drives development beyond sustainable limits. In Concrete and Clay,however, nature is not a limiting factor but an essence to deconstruct and re-construct. “The factors that determine the long-term viability of cities and re-gions rest ultimately not with natural limits,” Gandy contends, “which are inany case largely culturally and technically determined, but with the strategicsignificance of places with a wider set of social and economic dynamics” (p.51). Urban environmental history, in this work, does not place the city withinan ecological context, rather it is a canvas colored by a theoretical palette illus-trating a transcendent yet “inclusive” political process “based on human diver-sity, creativity, and interaction” (p. 227). The end product, then, is a means toprocure an undisclosed urban form. The historical record for such an endeavoris hardly optimistic; Mumford, Bell, and Donald Worster made their markchronicling the fate of society’s pursuing utopian dreams that promised toeclipse the earth’s bonds. Is it hubris or adroit interpretation that cements Con-crete and Clay? Finding the answer is the lure of this book.

In Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago, Da-vid Pellow pursues his subject with the eye of an “activist-scholar” (p. 7). A so-ciologist, Pellow draws on Mumford and Martin Melosi to craft a history out-




lining humanity’s close encounters with urban refuse. His real work, however,is an ethnographic analysis of the environmental racism underlying garbagedisposal in one of nation’s “trashiest” cities. A surprising and complex inter-play of subjects foments environmental injustice, revealing the depth of theproblem, even if the history is sparse. The usual suspects (industry and govern-ment) turn up, but the author also implicates environmentalists and residentsliving in the blighted communities.

In its rise to industrial dominance, the “hog butcher for the world” producedone of its most polluted landscapes. With the most landfills per square mile inthe United States, Chicago is a living testament to an earlier age of environ-mental disorder. Conflict between labor and management also runs throughthe city’s history. Although the scope of conflict has changed since Haymarketand the Republic Steel strike, the city remains a fulcrum for the nation pound-ing out solutions to urban problems. Chicago’s Garbage Wars pits poor minor-ities against entrenched elites, such as Fortune 500 giant Waste ManagementInc., “the most vilified waste hauler in history” (p. 8). A dialectical scheme,however, cannot explain these battles. In our postmodern world, the elementalissue of waste disposal is a contentious, complex problem we all create and, atthe same time, seek to avoid.

In 1895, Jane Addams held the position of garbage inspector in Chicago’sNineteenth Ward, where recent immigrants lived next to the city’s massivedumps. Twenty years later, Mary McDowell, an associate of Addams, con-vinced city leaders that the deplorable conditions spawned from festering gar-bage could not be shrugged off as a Darwinian fact of urban life. The citypushed for incinerators as a cleaner alternative initiated, what Pellow labels, a“movement-policy cycle” (p. 24). The introduction of a polluting waste-man-agement technology, such as an incinerator, produced a vocal community out-cry. In response, government and/or industry developed a supposed cleanertechnology, such as a landfill, and the cycle returned. As levels of toxicity andwaste increased over time, the risks poor minority communities encounteredrepresented a threat not only to their health but to their civil rights.

Borne out of this unique African American legacy, the environmental-justice movement took wings in the early 1980s to combat environmental rac-ism, “the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on communitiesof color” (p. 64). In Chicago, Southside activist Hazel Johnson initiated this ef-fort when she founded the People for Community Recovery in 1982. Besidesfighting the deleterious effects of living in a toxic-bound neighborhood, John-son pushed the city government to provide public services taken for grantedelsewhere in Chicago. In 1994, Johnson, recognized as “the black mother ofthe environmental movement” (p. 122), stood with President Clinton when hesigned Executive Order 12898. This new policy required all federal agenciesto work toward environmental justice, and it allowed inner-city residents to suepolluters as a violation of their civil rights. The Bush administration’s lax en-




forcement of Executive Order 12898 reveals that the policy is more symbolicthan rigorous. Yet it still offers a means to fight battles that can be won.

Pellow effectively delineates the issues and cyclical series of events thatgave rise to the environmental-justice movement. He follows the Mumfordianview that the parasitic growth of the great city depletes civilization. The factthat the great city’s refuse is literally dumped on poor, minority neighborhoodsis only one problem. Pellow argues that the “growth mania” (p. 154) drivinggovernment blinds its many stakeholders from their contradictory behavior.Public funds underwrite private development with massive infrastructure out-lays, but the external costs of pollution and water-supply depletion barely fig-ure into the equation. To pay the debt of this “hidden cost,” more progrowthpolicies are pursued and the public sector falls further into ecological debt. Atthe same time, the drive to privatize and streamline government for efficiencypushes regulators to the edge of insignificance. In the post-Enron age, when in-vestors demand government regulation, one cannot read Garbage Wars with-out hoping regulators also move to protect the nation’s poorest citizens fromenvironmental destitution.

Pellow has written a new chapter in environmental urban history. Unfortu-nately, a compelling analysis of recent events is offset by a lack of historicalheft. At a time when Louis Sullivan scraped the sky, Daniel Burnham planneda monumental city, and the Columbian exposition attracted millions, the au-thor fails to capture the dynamism and creative discord that created a dominantindustrial city. The productive powers of Chicago were unmatched, but thiscame at an environmental cost Pellow barely acknowledges. The failure toconsult Nature’s Metropolis reveals the brevity of his approach. Explainingthe city’s refuse as a byproduct of a consumptive machine engineered to re-make nature along the most strict lines of capital would better expose thestrains and limitations of the urban life Pellow probes. Also, a more thoroughstudy of Jane Addams and Chicago’s early reform movement would place theProgressive origins of the environmental-justice movement in a better light. IfPellow’s history is slight, he reveals the dilemma stemming from the fallaciesof a throwaway culture. The Garbage Wars are here to stay.

In Inventing the Charles River, Karl Haglund, another activist-scholar, mas-terfully traces the evolution of Boston’s riverine “Central Park.” Project man-ager for the Charles River Basin, Haglund helped facilitate the Charles RiverBasin Master Plan: The Second Century (2002). Only partially funded, this ef-fort seeks to renew and, where possible, enhance the historic fabric of theriver’s sinuous system of parklands. Inventing the Charles River placesBoston’s latest river vision in a continuum of plans and schemes dating back to1844. Haglund’s straightforward prose and stellar display of historical printsand plans (over 300) reveal how humans have recast nature to create a land-mark cultural landscape, “against which the visual character of the city is mea-sured and remembered” (p. xvi). An organic logic permeates this work as theauthor traces the origins and outcomes of plans springing from an evolving ur-




ban culture. In the end, uncovering the experiments Boston championed to in-vent the Charles River not only brings form to a cluttered history but also re-veals the state of our current standing with nature.

The scope of this book extends beyond the Charles River, investigating thegenerative Commonwealth landscape that birthed the professions of land-scape architecture and city planning. Weaving such seminal plans as FrederickLaw Olmsted Sr.’s “Emerald Necklace” and Charles Elliot Jr.’s Report to theMetropolitan Park Commission into the history of the Charles River is some-times tenuous, but Haglund never reaches too far. He is entranced by the dy-namic culture of late-nineteenth-century Boston, placing the works ofOlmsted and Eliot in tandem with the writing of Henry James and the art ofWinslow Homer. This period marked the high point in a “culture of refine-ment” (p. 211), when Cambridge and Boston elites united to secure the poten-tial of urban-industrial life in a healthy civic landscape. Haglund mines this eranot to expose paternalistic pretensions but to gain an understanding of the dy-namics that transformed the Charles River into a cherished public place. Re-gaining a history tangled in decades of conflict is crucial to the author’s en-deavor. Without historical ties to the past, the bevy of competitive interestsplying to shape the river’s future stand to lose a remarkable inheritance. Theauthor is an advocate, but of the gentlest type, as he plies history with apragmatic and telling touch.

The Charles River’s nine-mile course between Boston Harbor andWatertown is a remnant thread of an estuary that ran with tidal ebbs and flowsuntil a century ago. By the 1920s, the river was dammed and realigned and thesalt marshes and mudflats were filled to create a pastoral “Water Park.”Haglund traces the roots of his effort to the transcendental ideals of Emersonand Thomas Cole, but it took a half century for the concept to coalesce in, aproduct of the period and a remarkable talent, Charles Eliot Jr. (1859-1897).

The flurry of work Eliot produced in his short career is this book’s center-piece. Given that Eliot’s father, Harvard President Charles Elliot Sr., pennedhis only biography in 1901, Haglund’s Eliot exposé is an important contribu-tion. In 1887, after serving as an Olmsted apprentice, Eliot Jr. opened his land-scape architecture practice at an opportune time. Boston’s explosive growthhad pushed long-standing park discussions to the forefront. The fetid condi-tion of the Charles River exemplified the failing sanitary conditions the cityhad sought to rectify since forming the Boston Park Commission in 1875. Inaddition, the need to secure the city’s water supply, the singular belief thatparks were essential to civic life, and the dramatic success of EdwardBellamy’s Looking Backward provided an emergent clientele for the youngpark planner.

In 1892, Eliot and journalist Sylvester Baxter concluded a successful three-year campaign that produced the nation’s first metropolitan park commission.Charles Francis Adams headed the august body, and Eliot served as consultinglandscape architect. Haglund’s deft hand and a brilliant series of maps and




prints reveal Eliot’s genius in integrating and extending “earlier, fragmentaryproposals for the Boston region” (p. 126). His 1893 report to the commission isnot just the excellent primer in environmental planning that Ian McHarg ex-horted for a generation; it is a work of moral persuasion.

Eliot labored to create, what Haglund calls, the “Emerald Metropolis.” De-spite its degraded state, the Charles River defined the central core of Eliot’sgreen hub. He pushed to transfer the river’s margins to the public reserve to re-make them into a linear park system that would foster a more “congenial out-door life” (p. 212).

Eliot passed on in 1897, but his legacy continued. The “handsome prome-nades” (p. 227) he envisioned along the Charles were bounding Cambridgewhen, in 1903, Harvard opened the nation’s first graduate program in land-scape architecture. Charles Elliot Sr. was not just honoring the memory of hislate son; students could pursue their new field in a premier laboratory.

John Nolen, the top student from the 1903 class, analyzed park-systemcomponents in Cambridge and the surrounding region. Under the tutelage ofOlmsted Jr., he also gained a priceless knowledge of Eliot Jr.’s vision of an in-terconnected, green metropolis. Nolen moved on to private practice and hispath-breaking work laid the foundation for the new field of city planning. YetNolen’s plans always reflected an image of the Emerald Metropolis. Networksof green not only defined connections to nature but, as he concluded afterworking two decades in the segregated South, they offered settings where a di-verse population might gather in harmony to experience a common love of na-ture.21 Mumford, speaking of Nolen in 1927, stated, “At least one planner real-izes where the path of intelligent and humane achievement will lead during thenext generation.”22

Inventing the Charles River opens to full view the birth and first organicsteps of modern city planning. Mumford was one of the few urban critics torecognize that Eliot’s redesign of the Charles River was “central,” Haglundwrites, “to this new metropolitan framework” (p. 244). Early on, Mumfordalso championed Eliot’s plan to link the Boston region with a system of “pub-lic greens and open spaces,” as “an essential element of urban planning.”23 To-day, the idea of linking green systems underlies the disciplines of landscapeecology and conservation biology, while fueling the nation’s greenway move-ment. If Eliot’s design ideal remains vital, his “vision of regional public stew-ardship” (p. 367) fell way to a more myopic communal sense.

Ironically, the ideal of the Emerald Metropolis began to fade when Elliot Sr.established Harvard’s landscape architecture program. “In his subsequent ef-forts to make the university the ultimate guarantor of expert authority,”Haglund writes, “President Eliot contributed to what finally became the greatdiscontinuity in public life” (p. xxi). In the 1890s, ruling elites pursued the ex-pertise of Olmsted and Eliot, “but they remained fully and finally in control.”As the planning process fell under the sway of competing experts, Boston’sunified vision was shredded by a “disciplinary professionalism” (p. xx). A




concomitant shift occurred as the design of Boston’s landscape fell increas-ingly under the sway of traffic engineers. In 1929, a scheme to interject a four-lane highway into a new esplanade along the Charles River fomented a contro-versy tolling the death knell of Boston’s civic unity. Succeeding generationswould provoke highway controversies of their own, culminating in Scheme Z,the Big Dig’s galactic apparition of eighteen lanes of freeways, ramps, andbridges crossing the Charles.

Karl Haglund has written an important book that delivers history with a pur-pose. In trying to chart the course of the Charles River’s second century, he suf-fered to draw consensus from “the disabled discourse of city building is ourtime” (p. 367). The language he encountered is not beyond repair, but it re-flects a landscape increasingly calibrated to disconnect people from human-scaled places. In a world of, what Gandy labels, “cyborg urbanization” (p. 9),the natural, connective tissue of the Charles River Parklands is a panorama ofhuman life. Inventing the Charles River distills the popularity of the Parklandsto its elemental, Mumfordian essence: humanity’s relationship to nature. Ittook the prescient genius of Charles Eliot to graft this essence into a hybridseed that could flourish in the extremes of a new urban existence. Eliot’s in-sight came from the conviction “that reservations of natural scenery had be-come the cathedrals of modern life” (p. 370). Along the banks of the CharlesRiver, Bostonians daily celebrate Eliot’s belief. Humans invent natural scen-ery and create parks because they desire such places not only for their beautyand community but also to partake in an ancient activity that predates history.Writing urban environmental history, then, is less about reconciling contradic-tions than it is about revealing the prehistoric foundations our Faustian culturecannot escape as it forever seeks to build a new world.

—Bruce StephensonRollins College

1. Lewis Mumford, The Story of Utopias (New York, 1922).2. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays: Second Series (Boston, 1883), 171-72.3. Lewis Mumford, The Golden Day (New York, 1926), 89.4. Mumford, “The Sacred City,” The New Republic, vol. 28, January 27, 1926, 271.5. Mumford, “The Next Twenty Years in City Planning,” in Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference

on City Planning (Washington, DC, 1927), 48.6. Ibid., 48-49.7. Ibid., 55.8. Mumford, Regional Planning in the Pacific Northwest: A Memorandum (Portland, OR, 1939), 19.9. Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler, eds., Planning the Oregon Way: A Twenty-year Evalua-

tion (Corvallis, OR, 1994).10. Goldschmidt quoted in Charles Haar and Jerald Kayden, A Tribute to Lewis Mumford (Cambridge,

MA, 1982), 16.11. Peter Hall, Cities in Civilization (London, 1999), 6.




12. Mumford quoted in Donald Miller, Lewis Mumford: A Life (New York, 1989), 3.13. Ray Porter, “Inner Cities,” New Republic, vol. 222, January 10, 2000, 45.14. William Cronon, “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,” in Cronon,

ed., Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (New York, 1995), 85.15. William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York, 1990).16. Mike Davis, The Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster (New York, 1998).17. Greg Hise and William Deveraell, Eden by Design: The 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los

Angeles Region (Berkeley, CA, 2000).18. Charles E. Beveridge and Paul Rocheleau, Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American Land-

scape (New York, 1995), 35.19. New York Times, June 29, 2003.20. Daniel Bell, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1978; New York, 1996), 282.21. John Nolen, New Towns for Old (Boston, 1927), 110.22. Mumford, “Next Twenty Years in City Planning,” 5823. Lewis Mumford, The Culture of Cities (New York, 1938), 220.

Bruce Stephenson is a professor of environmental studies at Rollins College in WinterPark, Florida. His most recent articles appear in the Journal of Planning History andPaul Davis and Ray Arsenault eds., Paradise Lost: The Environmental History ofFlorida (University of Florida Press, 2005).




journal of urban history 2005 stephenson 887 98

Documents