radburn and the american planning movement
TRANSCRIPT
University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons ScholarlyCommons
Departmental Papers (City and Regional Planning) Department of City and Regional Planning
10-1-1980
Radburn and the American Planning Movement Radburn and the American Planning Movement
Eugenie L. Birch University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers
Part of the Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons
Birch, Eugenie L., "Radburn and the American Planning Movement" (1980). Departmental Papers (City and Regional Planning). 31. https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/31
Reprinted from Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 46, Issue 4, October 1980, pages 424-431.
The author, Dr. Eugenie L. Birch, asserts her right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/31 For more information, please contact [email protected].
Radburn and the American Planning Movement Radburn and the American Planning Movement
Abstract Abstract Many intellectual streams have contributed to the ideology of the American planning movement. Radburn, a partially built, planned, New Jersey settlement, represents the influence of English garden city theories. Radburn's plan was so well designed and rationally organized that it has become a permanent resource for planners who in every generation examine and sometimes adapt it to solve contemporary problems. As a result, it has survived as testimony to the planners' vision of suburban growth. It also represents, however, a neglected promise unfulfilled because of larger currents in American culture.
Disciplines Disciplines Urban, Community and Regional Planning
Comments Comments Reprinted from Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 46, Issue 4, October 1980, pages 424-431.
The author, Dr. Eugenie L. Birch, asserts her right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn.
This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/31
7
Radburn and the AmericanPlanning Movement
The Persistence of an Idea
Eugenie Ladner Birch
SU~MARY Many !mellu/ual 51rMms have (H/lrihuud /0 ,he ideology of the Americanpltm"",g rnov~rnem_ Radb,,"'. a p<1rlially built. planned. New Jeruy uulemml, represents ,II"mjluena of En!;"s}, gorde" city theo"n. Radbu",:' pion was m well designed and rorj,mallyQrgamud thai II has bUGrn. a permanent reSGurufor planners who in every generation e:>:amineandsomnlmnodap," lQ solv, contemporary problems. Asa rts"II, II has survj,edas uS/Iman)'10 Ihe planners' "'.lion of suburban growlh II o/so represents. however, a neg{uted prom!uunfulfilled bteouu of lorger (""tntS In American culwre.
Planned cities have been part of America's heritage for over three hundredyears,. but a domestic .city planning movement did not emerge until early in the~went,.eth century. Smce that time, its leaders have refined techniques andIdeas m the effort 10 make planning a unique profession and a supportable~ause. As part of this process planners have developed a literaturc and anIconography of model plans to act as guides for practitioners. I. In ac~ordance, with. t?eir beliefs, early proponents selected examplesIllustratlve of th~lr deflmtlOn of rational land use. At first, thcy drew uponEuropean experience, notably the British garden city projects. With theappearance of American developments, they turned 10 domestic efforts. One
R~p,;nled from Eugenie ladner lIirch 198(} "Radho," , • " A . PI. .. n~ "e mcncan .nninyMo\"emem: the p~r"'lence of an idea," Journal af ,he American Planning Assucia/io" 46, 4(Octoben. 424·439. Copynght(l 1980. the American Planning Associalion. Rep,inlet! b,·pe,m""oo.
122
Ir,,
(123
of the most publicized, long-lived, and inOuential models was Radburn,thepanially built garden city located in northern New Jersey. Despite its failure incontemporary economic terms, the city planning supporters promoted it as anormative pallern for their movement. As such, Radburn represented manyof the basic principles of planning theory from the thirties to the sixties.Although planners did not always practice according 10 the full Radburn idealin this period, they believed they should aim for its objectives: decentralized,self-contained settlements, organized to promote environmental considerations by conserving open space, harnessing the aUlOmobile, and promoting
community life.So ingrained in planning thought were these tenets, that by the sixties, with
the restructuring of the field to eliminate the emphasis on land and so-ca liedmiddle--class values, planning theorists discredited Radburn. Nonetheless, bythe seventies, they began to reaffirm the uniqueness of the project as anexample of the foresight and expertise of the profession. While these laterstudents renewed praise of features recognized by the earlier generations, theyalso discovered new, equally noteworthy, elements in the plan.
Radburn's history, then, is closely tied to the evolution of the planningmovement in the United States. As a continuous clement in planning theory,Radburn's SlOry can be uscd as a case study to trace the development of theprofession focusing on its changing aims, its propagation, and its reception inAmerican society. Although there are other examples worthy of investigation.Radburn is unique for its constancy and familiarity in planning literature.
A study of Radburn must take place within the context of the times, ratherthan by solely focusing on the project itself. For this reason, Radburn will beassessed through an examination of four interrelated topics: first, its timelyinvention at a critical point in the development of the profession in the latetwenties; second. the adaptation of its contributions to the planning processand physical design in the output of publicly financed land developmentschemes of the New Deal and later eras; third, its condemnation as a symbol ofthe defects of the field in the sixties; and fourth, its treatment in educationaland promotional literature used in spreading the ideas of the movement
throughout the period.
The Appearance of Radburn at a CriticalPoint in the Early Planning Movement
Radburn appeared at a critical juncture in the history of American cityplanning. While the movement's leaders wert: still struggling to define the
- J
124 E, L. BIRCH RADBURN
(
125
profession, they were soon to be thrust into the forefront of massive New Dealconstruction projects.
In 1928, the year of Radburn's initial construction, the movement was Jessthan a quarter of a century old. like the housing and social welfarecampaigns, it was the product of progressive reform activities of the latenineteenth century,l Planning's formal organizational structure dated onlyfrom 1909 when the National Conference on City Planning{NCCP) began tohold annual meetings. By 1917, some Neep members had created theAmerican City Planning Institute (ACP1), a technical branch designed to"study the science and advance the art of city planning."l Other peripheral butimportant participants were the American Civic Association (a conglomerateof municipal improvement societies), the American Institute of Architects,and the American SociCly of Civil Engineers! Overlapping membershipsamong these organizations were common. CilY planning ideas were as likelyto be discussed as at the National Conferencc on City Planning.
From its beginning, lhe members of the American City Planning lnstilutevigorously promoted the development of a theory and process of systematizedplanning. Although the Institute members represented only a small percentageof the NCCP rolls, and purposely limited its numbers by imposing slricteligibility standards, they soon dictated the movement's concerns anddirection) Theyexchanged ideas altheirown annual meetings and the NCCPsessions, in their journal (entitled the City Planning Quarlerly) and throughan informal network based on friendship. All practitioners, they were drivenby the need to identify specific professional skills, and develop momentum bycapturing mass supporl. Their deliberations frequently weighed the relationship between thcory, practice, and the public input. In 1926, Thomas Adams,head of the Committee on the Regional Plan of New York and its Environs.expressed a typical concern to Institute President and NCCP board memberJohn Nolen:
No profession is so open as City Planning to the danger of being watered down todilettante level by groups of amateur civic reformcrs and untrained exponent.> orcivic Improvements. Therc is no danger of pushing out the new in city planningbccause il is all new and thc very fact that it is still a long way from settling down, asa science artd an art. means that some group is necessary 10 gil'e ilthe right direclionand a small degree of soJidity.6
Throughout the early days, the city planners strove to develop the rightdirection referred to by Adams. Their varied activities ranged from thedesigning of war housing to promoting the creation of local planning andzoning boards, the wriling of master plans and zoning ordinances formunicipal governments, and participating in regional studies, In addition,
the kept pace with developments abroad through communic.ation with t~eir
co:nterpans in the International Housing and Town Planning FCderatlO~;From these efforts they began to create a body of Amencan plannmg thoug
for lheir followers. . f heB the late twenties, planners had articulated the baSIC goals 0 t,y. I '927 then NCCP president Nolen's keynote speech before thepro eSSlOn. n , _ d t" g
19th Conference presented several: relieving traffic congesllo.nan prom~ In
streel safety alleviating crowded living and working condltlo,ns, probv,ldl~,gy. . d· ·0' "a more avora e CIcity dwellers with more sunlight an au, ensun. f
environment for the rising generation," redu.cmg the .~mount.~ wa~t~
generated by excessively large cities, regulatmg Ihe SIze o~ wle;. a ofcombining a new. modern, and appropriate beauty With, Amencan teas d
"
. . , He 'ollowed by surveying the movement s progress toware IClency. .. . lar ". b b··e',·vM and admitted that "the record IS not spectacu .mcctmg t esc 0 J.... ...0 'k d . I P
Nolen closed with a challenge to his audience. He bId them to wor to e\e 0a broadened city planning science: . _
. e to find real solutions. we must dig still deeper into the subject ltself and~:: :;pecially into a consideration of the related social..econom~c.and l::;r:~mental conditions which innuence and color all that IS now ClOg
attempted.- . . th RadburnIt was into this environment of expansion and asptratlon at, .
came II could not have been developed at a more critical time, The ~mbrY~I1lC
. d d ymbol - a demonstration of its doctnne an amovement nee e a .I d Ilaboratory for its techniques. Radburn wo~ld fU,lfill many of these nee s. nshort, it was the right development at the fight tlme.
Radburn and lhe Planning Process
Radburn was the brainchild of members of the influential Regional. RPAA) d was constructed under thePlanning Association of Amenca ( , an . r' d
sponsorship of the City Housing Corporation (CHC), a prtva~e. mll~ ~
dividend company. The RPAA, founded in 1923 by a group ~f Itke~mm ,earchitects, engineers, economists. and sociOlogists, worked I~ c~nlUnC~I:a~
'th the CHC which had been created in 1924 by a wealthy Ne.... YorkWI, . ,10 Allh u h the RPAA addressed aestate entrepreneur, Alexander Bing, . 0 g fvariet of planning issues and drew inspiration fro~ E~ropean concept~ 0
y,. . R'dborn it tailored British garden cIty Ideas to the dtstlflctreglOna Ism, III .legal and social customs of the United States, The CHC, t~e economic panne~
, b RP AA began Radburn after experiencing financuil and archltecturao t e , . G d . New Yorksuccess with an earlier. smaller project, SunnySIde ar ens In , .
. . .. 6 lower than the current rale orAlthough restrictmg ItS dtvldends to percent,
126 E. L. BIRCH RADBURN
(
127
real Ut3le development but in line wilh other inlcrest-bearing invcslmenlS. ilsold enough siock 10 raise sufficient capital for its endeavors. 1I
The RPAA members worked as a team on the Radburn projeci and in theprocess they developed the lIew planning methods Nokn had urged. Inaddition, the social scientists among them contributed signifit3nlly to thephysical design. At first, the RP AA meclings were closed and casual. but laterthey were supplemented by lengthy technicalscssions attended by ouuiders.Referring \0 carly activilics, Clarence Slein reminisced to Catherine Bauer,"Our essenlial mecrings were informal. There is no record except OUfmemories."u However, when the group began to work seriously on Radburn.it held formal planning sessions. I n October of 1927. it sponsored a weekends~minaratth~ HudsonGuild Farm in N~tcong. N~w Jersey. to which it invitedsocial sci~ntists and others to study th~ pr~liminaryplans and comment onimportant community issu~s of ~ducation. health, governance. and race. I)The minutes of this meeting list som~ of the questions discussed. The agendaundcrscored members' concern for alleviating social tensions with a bett~r
planned environment. A sample demonstrates the scope of their concerns:"What should be the policy in relation to th~ admission of negroes and otherpeople of other races than white?","How many people must there be beforeth~r~ could be a good elementary school?", and "What sort of unified controlsare necessary to actain and protect an American garden city's beauty?"I'
The RPAA continued its meetings in New York City. purposefully seekinginformation for rationally bas~d decision making. Its members fully realizedthat they w~r~ undertaking pion~~ring work in planning. Charles Ascherwrote to Edith Elm~r Wood in F~bruar}' of 1928. with an ~xplanationof thegroup's objectives:
The fundamental problems of planning and policy as ),ou can well imagine are moststaggering. We have tried the plan ofasklngcxperu in various fields to meet with usto discuss the se~'eral problems - not so much initially to ans"-er problems. as 10
suggeSt lines of thought and put us in touch with the people and agencies who eanhelp to ans"'cr questions."
The plan for Radburn. clearly theeffon of the RPAA team, was not cr~at~din th~ traditional architectural mann~r. It r~f1~cted a multidisciplinarysynthesis of the most curr~nt data and exp~rt advic~. Furthermor~.d~cisions
were made by a rudimentary form of what evolved into the "planningprocess. "1& First, the planners formulated goals. then collected data. developedand selected a plan, implemented that plan. and later evaluated it (Plate 7.1).
1\ by-product of enlarging the participation in the planning meetings wasRadburn's rapid acceptance by the general planning movement. The participants were influential propagandists. Not only did the RPAA hav~ vocalmembers such as Lewis Mumford. Charles Aseher. and Clarence Stein, but
RADBURN NJ.......... '.,,, _...PLAit Of NO~THWEST ~ !lO\ll~W
RESIDENTIAL DlSTRiC1S-, .
7.1 The final plan for Radburn reveals the hierarchical circulation syStem and aless rigid land u~e pallern than preliminary plan~.
128 E. L IIiRCH RADBlJRN
(129
also the consultants included others of critical importance: Russell Van NestBlack (a long-time power in the American City Planning Institule). EdithElmer Wood (a highly regarded housing authority). Thomas Adams (theprominent teacher, wriler. and praclitioner), and Harold Buttenheim (editorof the American City Maga:ine), 11 All were in positions to promote Radburnand the planning process responsible for it.
Radburn's fame spread rapidly. American City Magazine had numerousarticles (February, o\'ember, December, 1928. and November, 1929), theNecp and the ACPI fealured il in Iheir discussions, and the academic andpopular press gave attention 10 the experiment. Al that lime, the praisedelements of Ihe settlement, subtitled by its promoters as a ~Town for IheMotor Age, ~ included the superbloclc (the high density clustering of single,double, and multifamily housing around large areas of commonly heldparkland). whose demographic dimensions were based on the neighborhoodprinciple so recently articulated by Clarence Perry in the Planlor New Yorkand il$ Env[ron$; the separation of vehicular traffic (wilh automobile routesdesigned in a hierarchical fashion 10 eliminate unnecessary traffic inresidential areas); and the development of a community organization. theRadburn Association, to administer the public lands, enforce reslrictions. andsupply supplemenlal municipal services such as recreation and day careactivities,U A few years after the initial construclion was completed crilicalcomments extolled the development's quality of life. The American ArchilUtmade this observation in 1980:
[Radburn] represenlS lht finl scientific efforllhat has ever been made loeslablish acommunity designed cltclusivc]y to minimize Ihe danJlcr of automobile accidems.Yet there were olher lhinp to consider 100... It was the desire of the builders \0create nOI only a [safe) cOmmunity ... but also one ... of beauty in appearance andIhe utmOSI in modern eHidency.1f
Ultimately the 1929 national financial collapse would cripple Radburn'ssponsor. the City Housing Corporation. CHC's 1933 bankruptcy preventedthe full execution of the original plan which had called for a complete townwith housing, employment, and commercial facilities for a projected 30,000population. Although only a small fraclion had been executed (housing forabout 3.000 and the commercial center). the plan and demonstration wouldbe inOuential in the coming years.JO
Radburn and liS Transferal to the American Landscape
The Amcrican planning movemcnt experienced a deep change in thethirties. The focus of its activity changed from local to national as New Dealprograms undertook slum clearance, new town and public housing con-
struction. mortgage insurance, and nalional planning. Also. an increasednumber of planners were employed direcily by the public sector rather thanindirectly as consullants. Along with these changes. by the end of the: decade.the Radburn imprint would be on most federal housing activities. However,because of the nature of the movement's organizational developments. onlypara of the Radburn plan, not the totality. would be transferred to the
American landscape.During the Depression, professional and lay supporters of cit)' planning
undertook the reorganization of the movement. In 1934. the NationalConference on City Planning merged with the American Civic Association tobecome the American Planning and Civic Association. The American CityPlanning Institute became an independent professional organization. whichlater changed its name to the American Institute of Planners. An entirely newgroup, the American Society of Planning Offidals. emerged to supplytechnical information to the growing number of paid and \'olunteer government leaders. The movement's leaders had designed a structure which wouldrespond to the changed environment and conditions of planning,ll
The movement, then, was actually a three-pronged structure, The AmericanPlanning and Civic Association channeled citizen support, the Amer,icanSociety of Planning Officials strengthened ia public administrators. and theAmerican City Planning Institute would develop professionals. All threeorganizations had separate offices and publications but they met togetherannually to exchange ideas about the state of the art,ll
The Radburn plan was of critical importance to the restructured movement.For lay citizens, it provided a well-publicized and comprehensible image ofplanning. For government officials, enough of Radburn was. built t~ showhow it worked and what elements were successful. For profeSSionals. It was afertile laboratory experiment. Tracy Augur. planner for the Tennessee ValleyAut~ority, articulated these three functions of Radburn in an article for theMichigan Municipal Review:
Radburn stands out singly not because it is the biggut or most beautiful of citiesbut because it is the firsttanllible product of a new urban science. , . that seeks wmake the places of man's habitation and industry fit the health requirements of hiSdaily life., . Radburn is nota theory, it isademonstratio~". ~adburn~annot be,amodel for all types of city, nor for all cities of the. reslden~lal type: 11 5Iands In
recognition of the varying funclions cities serve, and 1n planning to sene one of themore common of them, it points the way to the service of others.1J
Although many aspects of the Radburn plan were, immedia~ely. incorporated in new town cxperiments of the thirties, its reglOnall~phcat10ns
were only partially realized. Since the Tennessee Valley Authorny and theResettlement Administration, tWO of the key regional agencies, hired plannerswho either worked on or were aware of Radburn, it is not surprising that
\
130 E. L. 31RCH
(
RADBURN
(
131
7.1a Radburn
7.2b Norris
7.2 Radburn's interior park fa) is copied at Norris (b), becomes a lake at Greenbelt(el. is considerably smaller at Jonathan (d), and no longer protected from the street alColumbia (e).
7.2d Jonathan
7.2c Columbia
132 E.L.HIRCfI
(
RADBURN
(
133
transferable aspects of the plan such as the superblock, transportation system.and park arrangements cropped up repeatedly in designs for federalsenlemcnts.2< Radburn's translation into these efforts, its propagation by theplanning associations, its adoption by the British in their work. and its use as amodel in graduate curricula, explain why the pattern became associated withlater American new town development. l '; Reston, Virginia, Columbia.Maryland, Jonathon. Minnesota. and Irvine. California would repeal thedesign devices if not the overall concepts.
A brief survey of selected elements illustrates their transfer to the Americanlandscape. Radburn's much noted interior park (Plates 7.2 a,b), designed byRPAA members Clarence Stein and Henry Wright, was adapted by Earle S.Draper in his plan for the Tennessee Valley Authority community of Norris.Draper, who had considerable experience in company town planning, franklydrew upon the Radburn concept but changed it to meet the topographicalrequirements and residential customs of the southern site. 16 For these reasons,he dropped the superblock cluster housing. At Greenbelt, Maryland. one ofthe four Resettlement Administration projects, the superblock-interior parkconstellation appeared along with a new variation, a centrally located lake(Plate 7.2c). In Columbia, Maryland, and Jonathon. Minnesota (laterdevelopments undertaken by private entrepreneurs with some federal aid), afaded remembrance of the space is seen in examples unenclosed by housing(Plate 7.2d) and unprotected from the street (Plate 7.2e). Comparisons of thecul-de-sac design, footpath systems (Plate 7.3), and underpass adaptations(Plate 7.4) show similar variations as the developers tailored the devices tomeet their needs. Finally, the shopping center became a prototype for the latersettlements as well as for others not related to overall residential plansthroughout the United States. 17
Other less-pUblicized aspects of the Radburn plan became embedded inplanning philosophy. For example, Augur, and later the Urbanism Committeeof the National Resources Board. praised the town's homogeneous populationof young. college-educated, middle-income families, claiming that theircommon backgrounds and interests promoted a "much fuller enjoyment ofsocial life, ""a healthier community" with a more responsive government thancould be "had in larger cities, more diverse in scope."l!
Large-scale development, an integral part of the Radburn idea. carried overin both pre-war and post-war public housing as well as in urban renewal. Theredevelopers favored the method for economic and moral reasons. Not onlydid they argue that large sites had lower infrastructure costs. but they alsobelieved that superblocks stood as safe islands amidst crime ridden slums{Plate 7.5, 7.6V~
In 1931. housing professionals argued:
- rk 1 csult from a program whichA reduction of delinquency ra\?s IS ~OSl I e, Y\0 r , h elements in the
combines improvements in housmg With modlflcatlons ,n ot ~r oved housingcomplex, This combination means at least, the develo~mel~t ~f ImpT hysical planin neighborhood Units... This neighborh.ood unit. s ou ave s~c~l Ian of thiswhich would make the neighborhood relatlvely d.,stlnel. . A P;Ycal so~ial controlnature will tend 10 produce neighborhood organlzailon and a 0
which are lacking in many parts of the modern city.)"
The concepts of homogeneity and large-scale development were furthercxtended in the enormously inOuential work of the Federal HousmgAdministration (FHA). As with public housing, only parts of th~ ~ad~urnidea survived. Barriers to its wholesale adoption came from two limItatIOns.First the FHA structure requires self-sufflcicncy, which dampened op~or-
, S d Amcncantunities for experimentation as called for by Radburn. econ, ,zoning prohibited clustering and mixed uses. Notwithstanding ~h.ese stnctures,less than ten ycars after the construction of Radburn, FH A offiCials prom~tedmany of its principles. For example, the cul-de-sac idea, which Henry Wn~hthad urged in 1928, was doctrine by 1939.31 Although this dead~end street deSignhad appeared in several earlier developments, such as the B~lttsh Letchworth,Hempstead Garden Suburb, and Welwyn). its more extensIve use as part of acomplete street system at Radburn aided in convincin~ ~he FHA admllll~strators to call for its use in government-lnsured subdlVlslOns. TheIr 193manual. Planning Neighborhoodsjor Small Houses, Oatly stated:
Homes located on c"/-de-,<Gc:; .. offer distinct advantages especially to fam;~~~with small children. In addition 10 thc reduction of the trafflc haurd. the crea Theof su~h sites ha~ many other advantages to both the buyer and the developer.cost of street improvements may be greatly reduce~.Jl
In the same manual many illustrations of ideal subdivisions incorporateRadburn ideas, and a section of the actual plan was even included (Plate? .7).
Finally. the FH A endorsed the restrictive convenant, a tool used extenslvel~by earlier twentieth.century high-priced real estate developments such a
P,loo Verdes California. and Shaker Heights, Ohio. and adopte~ at". 'f d h tecRadburn. At Radburn, provtsions in homeowners' deeds spect Ie ~rc t ,-
tural controls. Unfortunately, the FHA recommendations suggestlllg. theIruse as a "protection for residential development" ulllmately led to VICtOUS
racial and ethnic discrimination,)J .FHA housing constituted up to 25 percent of all domestic new constructlon
betwen 1934 and 1970.J~ In some features, it did perpetUate~th.ough '.n a. mel, the hIerarchIcalfragmentary manner-a few Radburn notIons. na ..
transportation systems and large scale developments. 1 hiS transferal bears
(r
( (
134 E. L lliRCH RADBURN 135
f
7.3e Columbia
7.Jc Greenbelt
7.3a Radburn
7.3b Norris
7.3 The footpath at Radburn (a) is copied at Norris (b). crosses at Slretl at Greenbelt«;), goes under an underpass al Jonathan (d). and is placed fleX110 a main street atColumbia (el.
(
136 E. L. BIRCH
(
RADBURN
(137
7.4 The underpass 31Radburn (a) shows up atNorris (b). Greenbelt (el,and Jonathan (d), andbecomes an overpass atColumbia (e).
7.40 Radburn
lAb Norris
\r
( (
138 E. L. RIRCH RADBURN 139
1.j View of a lypical PW A low COSI hou~ing
principles.
• •• ••• ••
c _r I -<I, m """"d ;0 , ,."",-b1ockThe Radburn plan showing a sencs 0 ell: d til super-block The houseliaround a cenlral parl(. The traffic highways h""'" CThe cUI-dc.~c roadways
d darks ralher than t c s ree s. bface Ihe front yar Ii an p c rcar of lhe tlOlISCS. Trame passes Yarc service drives and 81\" access (0 tilrather than among tile houses.
7.6 The interior court of Brooklyn's Williamsburg Houses. also a rw A effor!, is safeand serene. The 1939 FHA manual reprinted part orlhe Radburn plan.
-_..-
140 E. L. BIRCH RADBURN
(141
testimony to the strength and adaptability of these aspects of the pIa n; yet theabsence of wholesale adoption indicates that the total pattern was still alien 10
the majority of American land developers. Planners had no! convinced themof the plan's desirability. In the main, it remained an ideal. most frequentlyemulated in public, not private, projects.
With the expansion of public planning programs, the movement-asmeasured by organizational affiliation-had grown rapidly. However. ilsactual numbers werc smaiL Furthermore, between the two planning associations, the influence of the government officials' group (ASPOl surpassedthaI of the professional society (A IP). (Membership figures show ASPO's 450dues payers in 1934 expanding to 3,600 twenty years later while the AlP200-memberconstituency grew to only 1.000.)H During this time, ASPO tookover the direction of the movemem. It did so not by membership growth alonebut also by extending essential services to local government. In 1949. whenASPO's original grants from the Spelman Fund ran out, its longtimerxecutive director, Walter Blucher. developed the PlanningAdvisory Serviceand the Zoning Digest. Dependent on selling SUbscriptions, he marketed themto municipal leaders of the expanding metropolitan areas who soughtimmediate, tangible, technical advice on how to deal with the postwaronslaught of people and automobiks.J6 By 1954, these widely circulatedpu blications reached 60 percem of all American cities ha ving popula tions of50.000 or more. and all the key federal and state agencies.J) Through thesepUblications, ASPO promoted some Radburn principles-particularly the bynow quite acceptabk large sca Ie developmem and hiera rehicaltransportationsystems-but it did not fully endorse the cl ustered superblock. It more readilypromoted anti-Radburn pOlicies such as single-lot, large-individual-yardresidentiallOning.J! The AlP continued to advance Radburn's garden cityideas. but on the whole, these remained textbook principles too utopian forcomplete American adoption and undercut by ASPO propaganda.
Thus, while the planning movement accepted the Radburn plan as a model,its few practitioncrs, frequently operating within a relatively unsympatheticenvironment, could execute only those aspects which melded easily withpre-existent customs. While suburban property and energy were abundantand low priced, the conservation aspects. partiCUlarly the superblock, mixeddensity residential unils and the regional organization of employment, werenot attractive to land developers and municipal officials who favored simpler,cheaper Euclidean-based subdivision arrangements. In COntrast, the superblock based on thc neighborhood principle was more widely applied inpostwar public housing projects but with a new twist. The carefully calculatedhuman scale densities of Radburn were distorted as legislative, economic, andpolitical considerations dictated the construction of high risc buildings inslum cleared areas.
Radburn's Fate in the Sixties
. d't metric growth of theIn the sixties, the planning movement continue 1 s geo lumber offifties The number of practltioners more than doubled, the I ., for
lannin schools expanded to meet the demand. and the OPPo~lunltle.sp g rr t d as the federal government became IOcreaslOgly
~:~~~~;~:~r~:: Ip~~~:m~.l9 For .the ~rst ~a~t oft~~:ei~~:;sthaer~:~~:~~~01~~intellectual capital remamed prlmanly lie to
Radburn. , d unchangedBasically, the official objectives of the moveme~t remame d MIT
from the earlier period. Shortly before the .~egl~n~~~eo~/;\~l~~~l:t·edtheprofessor John T. Howard. also.a former presl en 0 ent 'Function and a
goals in "City Planning as a SOCIal Movemed"'b·~f~~v~~~70int Committee onh · J P f sion" a p'per he presente eTec mca ro es . . I ·t t f Technology
Planning and Urban Development of the CarnegIe nstl u eond the University of Piusburgh. Later the inllucntial study group. Resources
~or the Future. published the remarks. Howard noted:
. h h lans themselves are relawd toThe ultimate goals are ~1early SOCial ~l:th~~~hi: broad framework. I suggest thephysical things and phYSical places. . . t r functional parts of the Cltyfollowing: First would bc the arrange men a h part can perform its functionsresidence. commerce and ind~stry. etc,-~o ,eac
ldbe linking of all the parts ofthc
With minimum costs and confllc\. ·'dse~o~ld :ouan efficient system of circulation.city to each othcr and to the outSI e "'0 . Y 'to sensible standards-forThird. the development of each part of .the Cl~~ ac~.~~d:~egas for parking in businesslot size, for sunlight, fo.r green spac.c 111 ~:; i~~alfc. sani;~ry and comfortable andareas. Fourth, the prOVISion of hOUSlllg t t t the varicd needs of all kinds andpleasant -in a variety of dwelling ty~e.s a mee , d schools and othersizes of ~amilie~... ~ifth. thc provlsl~~iz~~ l~eCc:t~~~~:da~uality. And sixth. thecommumty servlccs of a hlgh standarddO ther utilities and services. adequately andprovision of water supply. sewerage an 0economically.<o
•.ootinued to act as a model for fulfilling theseRadburn's plan of course. ,-,u
objectives. k Leading theSoon. however, the standard theories came under hea\~ atl~~6·1 The Death
critics was Archirectural Forum author Jane Jaco~s, ~ ose , bias towardand Life 01 Great American Cities condemne p.anners . 'd· of
l' , ··d" d questIOned their In Ices ...decentralization as "cIty destroymg I cas an d d· 1947 by the
blight and deterio:ation. He~ wo.rk \l,~~i~hb~:; p~~~~:O;he~~architeCt teamGoodman brothers Commumtas. m ... h comment that
~~~~i:~~~~~~ i~i:~~Yat~~~~~~agt~~ ~~~;:~e~l~:llt~~~~I;J~~h,t_~Je:t~ee~:I~~:~~;.' h h an eXistence was too ac Ua ,
~:~o:~~~S;~~I~~~I~~~i:ti~~.s~cnumber of social scientists. including Herbert
142
(
E. L. BIRCH RADBURN
(143
Gans, John R. Seeley, and William Moore. Jr., expanded her theses through aseries of detailed stud ics. They concluded that the mind less application of thesuperblock-neighborhood unit principle in public housing needlessly destroyed the useful social structure of low-income communities. They furthercharged thaI projects replacing slums were "badges of social identification andaffliction [which] the outside community reacts to as though they were lepercolonies and the lives of the residents seem to have neither dimension normeaning. "01
Soon olhers joined. calling for a tolal reevaluation of the field. Forexample, in 1964 designer Kevin Lynch condemned the use of stereotypicalplans noting that the repetition of the garden city and superblock withoutreference to purpose demonstrated a glaring "una ware ness of the vast range ofpotential city forms.""l
Another equally important criticism allaeked the profession's traditionalreJia nee on technical ex pertise coupled with political neutrality. As heirs to theprogressive assumption that knowledge of problems would lead to their rapid.scientific solution, planners had long ignored pOlitical realities. HunterCollege professors Jewel Bellusch and Murray Hausknecht noted thisbehavior in their 1967 collection, Urban Renewal: People. Politics andPlanning. They observed that numerous studies, in particular MartinMeyerson and Edward Banfield's documentation of the failure of the ChicagoHousing Authority in Politics, Planning and the Public Interest, madeplanners realize that this "naivete [had to be] abandoned [and] the profession[had to] recognize the intimate relationship of polities and planning. ""3 Fromthese thoughts, it was not a very long step to the citizen partieipationadvocacy planning movement that developed in this period. This effortbrought thc pluralistic nature of American society to the planners' attention.and called for practitioners to represent the interests of a variety of clients.specifically thc powerless lower-income groups ....
Ironically. some critics continued to support the broader Radburn ideas.now relabeled new town planning. In 1965, Herbert Gans, intent on hiscriticism of urban renewal. made the following proposal:
If the slums arc rcally 10 be emptied and their residents properly housed elsewherethe rehousing program will have 10 be extended beyond the city limit., for thesimple reason that that is where most of the vacant land is located This meansad milling the low income population to the suburbs; it also means creating newtowns-selr""Contained communities with their own industries.'l
The decade of the sixties was a turbulent period for planning. Formcr AlPJournal editor Melvin Webber caught the spirit of the times in his landmarkessay "Comprehensive Planning and Social Responsibility" when he diagnosed the nature of the changes:
iod of rapid change; some hal'e called it aCit,' planning is moving through a per . I'k-I,. 10 be. The major sign is a
. he lran~formatlOn I ~ . . •revolution. so dramatIC IS t. . largc increase in the prolesslon s
.. . The malO prospect 's a f h 'growing sophtstleallon. b h -,',-,ion of a large body 0 t eor~h· f t' lant has cen tel" ~ .effectil'cness, The c Ie s ,mu .. h social and behavioral SClenc~s over
and method that has been accumulating tn t /' h been largely immune to.'.the decades and which until reeenily the pro ess.on as
. . t had absorbed much of the change. TheBy the late Slxttes. the move men . b' "0 .,llect thc practitioners'
. . ded theIr 0 Ject\\es ,professional aSSOCIatIons amen r -Iytical tools-namely the
. ' 'I ded thc usc 0 new anaactivities, whtch now mc u h as environmental issucs. energycomputer-and also added concerns SUN' ,he.less as Ihe Gans proposal
, d human resources. one. . rcon>crvallon. an , Radburn Ian lived on to be adjusted orreflects. the ideals art,cul~ted by. the b f ther studied in the followingcontemporary needs. Thelf perslsten~eca~ e ursurvey of their propagation in plannmg ltterature.
Radburn's Treatment in Promotionaland Educational Planning Literature
i hI' visible. From 192910 the present,From the outset. Radburn was h g ). t has consistently pictured
romotional and educational plannlflg htera urcp 'd ~
Plannin~ for Resl etlmuDistricts
.......... ,..,"-...-,-e'n" ...."',.v· ,,,,. hi'"''''~_ .....,..-~c..~''''''''''' ' ..,"'0_....,-".".-C'TlU,":> .,'" '"" ,~'-" ...,.. 1-
~t>5G\"" s~~«;'..:..,' l.l41IHC;{-, ,.,.".:'''.'<-. " '."
!.P
_ ....,';:-=.."':_-
Tl'~':~;;:":;l>'="'~~1.:..~j".......,""""'.D ;.
!< ~ ,,,-
I t or the Pres.dent's. ee on Subdivision _ayou7,8 The report of the Commlll 0 hip recommended adopl1on of
B 'Ido, and HOOle wnersConference on Home UI I
Radburn principles. (Note the frontispiece)
(145RADBURN
In the sixties. despite the strife created by differing opinions about theranking of social and physical priorities, a spate of articles appearing at thetime often entitled "Radburn Revisited" showed that professionals and laysupporters alikc found the settlement still worth studying.54 In 1964 AnthonyBailey. writing in the New York Herald Tribune, observed its enduring
quality:
Furthermore, the Radburn visits probably added a vision of the benefits ofcluster wning and planned unit development which municipal governments
would begin to accept in this period.56
The planners of the seventies have not forgotten Radburn. In 1970, JohnLansing of the University of Michigan included Radburn in an importantstudy of six American planned environments, and concluded that Radburn'splan remains a model.17 He found its design to have important implicationsfor energy conservation, recording that 47 percent of Radburn's residentsshopped for groceries on foot while comparable figures were 23 percent forReston, and only 8 percent for a nearby unplanned community. Otherfindings. such as low figures for weekend trips and low average numbers of
miles traveled by car per resident. bore out this claim.
1n September 1978. Building Maga;;ine reported on a contemporaryextension of the Radburn concepts, the Harmon Cove project built by Hartl.Mountain Industries in the newly reclaimed meadowlands area of northernNew Jersey. Only a few miles from its prototypc, the forty-acre settlementdesigned by architect Jerome Larson, Land Design Associates of Long Island,and Hartz Mountain planners has approximately six hundred dwellingsclustered around centrally located open space laced with separatc vehicularand pedestrian systems, including the typical underpass.
1!
To Radburn. ,come engineers, architects and planners from all over the world andMr. Sporn lakes them around to see the parks, lanes, paths, pools and the famousOlmsted-type underpass... There also come study groups from the Urban LandInstitute and the FHA .. and students from Harvard. Princeton and Cornell who
reneet on how rtlevant Radburn seems. . II
Problems and Prac/ices. In this extensive collection of essays, Cha rles Aschercontributed "Government by Contract in Radburn. New Jersey," an evaluation of the settlement's use of restrictive covenants, giving attention to thepossibilty of their use in urban renewal sites ,11 About the same time. twO newte:>::tbooks appeared: Arthur B. Gallion's Urban Pallem and ChristopherTunnard's City of Man. Both praised Radburn, Tunnard challenged hisreaders with this question: "How much longer can we coast along on the.reputation for good-looking civic design achieved by Radburn?"5J These textshave been used extensively in schools of architecture and planning.
,(
E. L. RJRCH
(
144
"~'7.9 Illustration in Nei hI! rh d 8' .sh h' g a 00 s wllior Rental Housing the 1947 FHA 1
ows t e Incorporation of some Radburn design elements. . manua,
and discussed it. Over lime. planners have r' -solutions for their own work Th R estudlCd the plan to find newmodel for the movement. . us, adburn has been a remarkably resilient
Throughout the thirties. writers looked t R .memo In 1932 h 0 adburn as a major accomplish-, t e reports of the Conference H . ,
Homeownership(a meetingl;alJed b P' on orne BUlldmg andby three thousand delegate) . Y dre~ldentHe:bertHooverandattendedPla~ning for Residential di;I~~~~~:JeIn la9d3~ur;~n the frontis~iece o~ one,Residential Areas. part of the multivolum . amas .Adams s Des/gn ofalso featured Radburn as th'" f .. e Harvard CIty Planning Series.
. " rontlsptcce (Plale 78) E hrecognlud its fame- "it is . . Yen I en Adams. unnecessary to describe the fe t f hdetail as these arc well known "'8 He co . . a ures 0 t c ... plan inplan with the judgment that 'it was a ncluded hiS ent.lcal evaluation of theMumford's The Culture or Ct' s'duccess. Later In the decade, Lewisf 'J lies wou promote Radbu .avorably with similar work by Frank Llo d W . rn, com~anng it
the same time th" U b . C . Y right and LeCorbusler.'19 At, " r alllsm ommlltee of th N' I
surveyed 154 American plann d . . e attona Resources Boardof the 29 given detailed cove~a;::7nu~~;~sandfocused on Radburn as onestration pUblicized it in PI' ' the Federal Housmg Admini·already discussed' its 1947 ~:mngl for ~mall Neighborhoods (Plate 7.9),passage of a hous·' . nua carned on the tradition)! In 1949 the
. lng act WIth comprehensive b 'Coleman Woodbury to com 'I b' ur an renewal provisions led
'l~~w. -1 :M)"" h"dboo': U'b"~:d::~'~m,m
~~O~~~1Ii~", ~~~~~.if
fdThl~tl"~;[Jlf* -" . -'--' ---"',..-....,;.=~:-::r_:--~-~---_ ,-,'.--,. ,',- ""'.
146
(
E. L BIIl.CH RADIIURN
(147
Finally, in the spring of 1979. professional and Jay interest arose again.probably stimulated by Radburn's flfticth anniversary. The New York Timesran a feature article in April and Planning l.lagazine had one in May,S' Inaddition, John Gallery, then Director of Housing and Community Dc.velopment for the City of Philadelphia, reassessed Radburn in an addressbefore the annual mecling of the Society of ArchiteClUral HiSloria os. In thistalk he emphasized the plan's lessons for him in his current position, nOlingthai the community's mix of residential uses allowing for a mUltigeneralionalpopulation was a particUlarly impOTtam model.60
Also, in 1979. revisions of the standby planners'textbook. The Pranice ofLocal Governmem Planning, issued by the International eilY ManagementAssociation. included extensive coverage of Radburn in ils sweeping "Plan,ning Portfolio." Seeking to demonstrate the slOry of planning in Ihe UnitedStates in the last generation. ilS author, Louis B. Schlivd:. perpetuatedRadburn. labeling it "a pioneering new to.....n. - Using photographs and text tohighlight the major features, Schlivek concluded that Ihis "most ambitiousand durable of planningc:fforts was and is in many ways even more relevant toour presenl problems than il was at the time it was conceived. 'V;l
Conclusion: Radburn's Implct
Radburn has had a significant impact on planning theory and vision in thetwentieth century. NO! only did it act as an exemplar of the profession'sprinciples but also ils design became a steady resource for practitioners.Furthermore. in e~'ery generation since the beginning of the mO~'ement.planners-always affected by the economic. social, and political environmentof their times-have found answers to speeific contemporary problems inRadburn. Though the issues change. Radburn. the icon. docs not.
The original group of Radburn designers, the members of the RegionalPlanning Association of America, developed the plan as a team. eachconlributing his individual skills and seeking additional advice when needed.Their product. a comprehensive. rational. technical plan. demonstrated thebenefits of this prototype city planning process. Later planners would emulatethese procedures,
They produced a superior plan, Its complcx program addressed Contemporary needs, primarily the integration of the automobile into residentiallife. Its failure to anticipate mid·century multiple car ownership and itsawkward positioning of dwellings with back doors fronting the streets werenotable weaknesses, but they were excused by the originality of Radburn'ssuggested suburban pattern based on the hierarchical arrangement of st reetsa nd large recrealional areas. Oller time the plan acted as a pcrmanent resourcefor praclilioners' reference. Durable and ingenious. the design suggested
. f ommunilyseminal solutions to a panoply ~f new concerns rangmg rom c" ,gy conservatIon.organizatIon 10 ene . w bascd- nsidered Radburn a success, a IIle
In succeeding years. planners co . "utiOn Their stance bolstered,. II t Istrength notonllSex .
on thc plan s lnle ec ua . • f' claiming expertise in land usc:their ambitions for promollOg a pro e~slon ',h '.rious New Deal projects
h-' planners work 109 WI ,matters. In the t lrues. . rna' but they were only able to propagatetreated the Radburn deSign as dog R" 'Administration's Greenbelt
"IT d'verse as the esett emenparuofltlOe orIs as I .. " n regulalions In training new, F d I Housing AdmlOlStra 10 . Itowns an e era , . , ' 'the Radburn plan-a ong. f I praCtJIlOners prose yllzegeneralions 0 p anners. h . d' 'dualdeslgndevices becamew"h other adaptations-with the result latIn tVI, ,
associated with enlighlened planmng. . . 'ty of landD I lanners failed to convlOee the maJon
However, the New ea p h lete Radburn concept. Thebl" and private to adopt t e comp .
developers. pu ~c. .' Radburn forms to planning problems, In
consequent apphcatlon of dtl~ted. d urban renewal programs, set theparticular in the postwar public hOUSing an. lutions (Certainly, in thisscene for later attacks on physical planmng s,o of de~igns for [arge.scale
. lone of many examp es .period Radburn IUS on y . well known and lingered on 10 theneighborhood unit development, bUIlt was
literature as a normal.ille p~uern:) Radburn and all that it had come 10By the sixties. cmlcs dIscredited, . that designs based on
h ked the planners assumptlon .represent. T ey attac . I s They indicted the techmmiddle,lass values could promote S~CI~ PtOf:~: ror their failure to includecally based procedu~es producing p .)'sl~a ~hey called for holistic solutions.citizens in the planmng process. IroniC::. ested. Even in these lurbulentsuch as the original Radburn planners a s~gg f
h R db -dea persisted but In a new orm.times, then. tea urn I , . . f Radburn in the seventies
Planners have based their positIve ~eeval~all~~s~eeming proof of the field'son a new application of the pl~n's d,eSI!n
k," .,o.n'~ert themselves as technically
r h As professlona s see 10, ~~accomp IS menu. . seful evidence of this expertise.competent. ~adb.urn provl~es u
fR dburn demonstrates a ehronic issue in the
Finally,thlsbTle(casestu yo a f practice Postwar suburban. f ld the divergence of theory rom· h
plannmg Ie : . II.' the Radburn pattern, e~'en thougdevelopments clearly dl.d no: fOliO., (Olmation of the American
.' t" g In thiS radlca lrans _planners partlclpa In 'd 1 The profession was 100 weak,ltslandscape held the Radburnplan ~s an I ea. market-oriented for praclieingpractitioners 100 few, and Its e~lstence ,'00 ,'tical economic, and social
m, , "P'y "gralne po I •planners 10 overco . d by the Radburn
'" "h 'h' rational but radical goals expressetra Itlons WI
concept. has been an important innuence in the intel,U,questionably, Radburn , 'h 'ed as a
Planning movement. I as senlectual tradition of the AmeTican
...._--------------------
148
(
E, l. BIRCH RAI)BURN 149
testimonial of the profession's potential. It has acted as a permanent referencefor generations of planners, and il persists as a respectable icon in the field'sliterature. Ho....'(:vcr, as an applied pallern. it has failed to be a determiningforce.
NOTES
I John RCI'JIIl no, Md;inK D/U,b,,,, Anvrins(P"nCClon: Ptinuton Un""l'$lly Pro~. I96S1&ivn In ampk ,un'ty of AlIKrican 10"'11 pllnRlng from ,he colonial ptriod 10 .he modern trll.
Mel SCOll ,n Amcn..,,,, C;'y Pla'",i", Sinn fl90( Uni,"en,,)' ofC.liforn;" Prcn. Borkoky. 1969/eo'"cr, the ,rO,,"lh ofcOlllcmporarydfortL JOhn l Hancock h:u ....rulcn ''''·OulXllcnl.,udics of.he carly planning mo~cmcnl:MPlann'll' in lhe Chan,l,ng Amencan City, r900_1940. M JOIlTntJloj'M ",.,,,iran InSII/"" of P/"""..n(Scpl. 1967) and MJohn Nolen. TI>< Badground of a P,oneerPlanncr,M Journal of1M Amuir"" "mi'ult of PI""I/us (No....mbe•. 1960).
2. The growth of 'he housing movemem Can be (ound "I Ro)' Lubove. 11l~ P'I.>#'~JJi"('Sa"d'"~ Slum.s Ilimburgh: Uni"".. ity of Pi1t1ibulgh I'resi. 1%2) and E. L. Birch. ··Woman.MadcAmerica: Tht Cue of Early Public Houilng I'ol;cy. MJI.>UfI/"/ of ,h~ Amui"", IIl""''''~ ufP/"I/Ilrrs I April. 1978). Tht eme.genee of lht social welfare movemtnt ;s covered by Allan F.Davis, SptQ,h~Odsfo' R'fo,m (New York: Oxford Univer<ity Press. 19671~nd RObert !lrcmner.From lht Deplh.<, Th. Discovrry of PO,...rlY ilf Ih~ United SlaIn (New York: New YorkVn;vtrsity Pren. 1964).
3. This Slatemem of pUlpOse cOm.s from the Con"itution of th. Amer;can City PlanningInslitute. June 1923.
4, StOll In Am.,;("a" Cily Planl/;ng dIscussed II>< Am.rican Civic AssocIation and ItS
de'·elopment. Early planners .uth as Nelson 1'. lewis. HenlY V Hubbard. and John No~n ....reext,e"",ly aCli..., in Ihe profeulonal organizallon. pcrtllning to tMir rc.pe<1"·c artas o( intereS1.englOe<:nnC and !;Indscapc archil«1urc.
3 Correspondence a mong the ca rly offic.rs re...,alsl heir COnce.n ...ith membershIp sianda rds.Sec, for e....mple. Geo.,. Fe.d to John Nol.n.lellers Ihroueh 1921 in thcJohn Nolen Papefl'.ClIy Plannlnc Colleel1on. Cornell Un,,·.rSlly.lthaca. Ne ... York. Amonglhe l"C"<IuirementS (ormembershIp wtre eiChl )"tall' of praclical hl,h It,·.. upcritnce and !",.-soRaI endorsements (romsponsors.
6. Thomas Adam. 10 Jo~o Noleo, October 11. 1926, Jolin N<Mto Pa!"'rs.1. Jolin Nokn, ~T"'~nlyYean of City Plannin, Progress 10 the Uniln! Slatn.~ In P14""'1/8
Prohk,.,s of To.. ", Ct'1)' ,md Reg""" Pape~ Ind Dlocuosions al Ih~ 19th Confe.en« on CllyPlann;n, (Washin,ton. D.C-: Nallenal Conf.renee oe Clly I'lannin,. 1927). p. 19
a Ibid.9 IbuJ., p. 20.
10. Roy Lubc~e. Commu"ily Pltml/lnl in 1M 1910 ..: 1M COrrlribulions of Iht RtKionalPla'",fl/I A..~,afiol/ofAmrrko (P"ubur,h: Uni''Cfl'ity of Pillsburgh Prc... 1%21 Clar~n«Ste'n. To ..'O,ds N...· To"..nsfOf" Amuica ICambfldge: M IT Press, 1913).
II Ib,d.. pp.IJ.8.71.
12. Clarence Stein to Catherine Baller. Seplember 21. 191>1, Clarence Stein I'ape... Cil)'Plannin, Collectien. Corn.11 Uni~~rsily.
I), "Summary of Di""u,~ions of Probl~m. Conne~t~d with a Garden City at a Selte5 ofC"nrerene~s of the Regional Plannin~ AssOCiatinn of Ameri~a,"Oct. 8 and 9. 1927. Clar.nnSt.in Papers,
14, "Probl~mi Conn~cled with a New Cil)..... Clarence Stein Pape...13, C~arle5 A<c~er to Edith Elmer WoGd. February 6, 1928, Edilh Elmer Wood Collee1ion.
A"ery lIbrary. Columbia Univ~,.il)·.
ddt appear unl1l much latH. Su. forIb AClual eochficallon of t~~ p!;lnntn, rocess
(~c...n~Ork; Cornell Unr.eulty P,n•. 1%1).eumpk. Alan Altshul.r, Thr Cuy PIDI/"",! 'ON'~ blem. in I\e" Plannln,.M,n P,or.rd",~s of
11. Sn.fore...mple. '-Oil .. Sro..nlo.... Some '0 '~Eeonomy Cha,m.ndSa(etyof1M N,,'ion,,1 Confrrr=.on C;,y PIDn"'ll8fPhlladelPhllN 1929)b-, 19281" Henry M, Proppe'.tbe CIlI de S.t Slrttl.
MAmr,ir<rn 01)' MIIID;"'" ( o...,m .r. " ~_ 1929I'
and MNe"
Sh R II "Amr,kl",CII)·Mllla;",r/Ne>cm"",r. .MRadbu,n'l Un,que Plan o"'s esll" . h M Ale nde. M B,ng M"'11"0"111 '\/u"i,'p4lYOlk's filS! Saldli,~To...-n, An InterVle.. ""I • r'" - .
lI.vi~.. IMareh, 192&). T Pia d f th~ MOlor A~." Imr,,,oliOflfJlI' lOlllS 8rownle... "Radbu.n: A Ne... o ....n nne or. R I Plan of N.....
. 8" . 'F bluary 1930l' Comml!lU on eglonaHowi"g""dTO"'"P/a",,;1/1 u run e , '., v I.VIIIN.... Yo.k.Ru~loCllYork and n~ Envlfon., RegiOl/al Pia" ofNr..· Yo,kal/dlu En."OIOJ. °Sage foundallon. 1929); Siein. TO"'D,ds Nr...~To .. ru. Pp..3'-1~~rhilr" 137 (Jan ..... ry 1930): 42.
19 "Radbu,n A TO""n Piann~d for SafelY, Thr A.....'It"Dn if I ()('OI. . Israel S,ollman, f ..nk Bul. and Da~id .... rnold. Th. P'oru" 0 -
20. Frank So,. ,~. 0 C 'International City Manag.menl A.soclallon. 19791,Go,,,,,,,,,r,,, Pla"n",//: I.... as",nglon. . ..
p.447. .' f he National Confercn~e on Cily21 "Repo'! of tne Commiuee on R.·organl1.atlol1 e ~, I PI . Colle~l,on Co,nell
I'lan~inll." Spnng, 1\134. Rus..n Van Nesl Bla~k Papers, uy anmng .
UnivN~ity. 0 Id \ Kru.ckebcrg. "The Slory or tne22 For fu"n~r di'CUSSlon of lhe~c eha'lg~5 ,ee onll ,. 5 . f Planninl'
' 19W" dEL Birch "Adl'anClng lhe Art .nd cl.nCe 0 •I'I.nne,·, Jouma!. I'll S.. . an 190'9"1980 "'Jou,,,ol ef Ih~ Amnira" Pla""I"g AJlOda,iol/Planners .nd the'" Orgllnl1.atlons. .
(Janu.ry 1980). ( N~ .... Town." Mich;go" MUl/leiptJl Rr~I....23. Augur. "Radburn-The Challenle 0 a
{February 1931):40 T ., . I a Plannn! New To...·n. Noms,• "1 Aelred J Gray M he "atunne 0
24. Fo, ela' • ..., .. the au,hor by tM TVA library. KnOXVIlle.Tennesr.ce:' Th. T.I/"'.... PI""I/..' (xerox ~nt tOT f Ne.ri. ~ AmrrlC.." Auhiru' (Apnl,Tennessee): Tracy 5. Augur, MT~e P!;Innml ';..t;eh"o,;; tAlh~ns; Obio Un"eD,ly P,ess. 19111:193b); JOKph L, Arnold. T1tr "'r... Or,,1 lit I "
and Clarence S'~In, To ..·..,dJ -"'~'" To..:fIS urn rincl les. By Ihe !>IX"U Radburn hadH. 8,,"sh ne'" te,,-n admln..traton u>t'd Rldb
ltAPE J ~"or is "PnvaleSeelor Hous,n,:
become eommo.. parianc:e lor t~m. Se~ fOleum~;/o..- t' ~3 {~~a~ 19101; MlCllael Fa~nee.The Radburn Oiltmma." OfF.flol A,rlll/uI""r lIn ""."
MThc Radburn Idea." &ill En-..'o"......., 2 (Au,"st. 19HI.
2b, Scon. Am."CD" Ci'T PID"nirtK, p. 312, . ItCCSteln and Calherine Bauer. -Storr27 JohnT Ho,,·ardloE.l. Buch,Sepl.3. 1919.Cia.e . F 19)4)
. , hood Sho in, Centers MA,fllf,erlural Rrrord { .b."aryBllild,ngs and NeIghbor pp.. PI d LDnd Polk'" (Washlnglon, D.C..
18. National Re.eurc:es Commlltee. U, n a"""'1 "" M
U.S Government Prinling Office, 1939): Augur, MRad~lIrn. p- ~ ""anI Ie Catlleflnc Bauer,29 Hou.in, "t~ratureof lh~ pe.iod promoted IhlS ,·ltw. S~~. or
l. ~.... A",•. n_,. i"
. M ff! C ' 1934)' o"'\i • on... " ......Modr." Housi;, (D~tOnO: licoughton , I~c '~91~~~::~'eth K. ~to"'ell(ed.lMHouslngand Ihe1I0llJfIljt(New'ork:JOl,n 3y ompan}... .
Emergen~y," A"hi,ulu,al Forllm (March 1932). . '00 P ident'S Conferon~30 ThlS;5 only on. of many ouch natemcnts of ,hIS and later pe". s. "ej. I) C U.S
on .iome Buildingand Hom. OwnershIp. HQI.fsm!; alll' lhe Cammll"",I·f .... ..hl~¥!on. . ..
Government !',intl1,g Office. 19)2). pp, 47-4R, , . ., II nl,a" C;IY~1. Wright slruggl.d 10 con\"in~e his follow~'1 In an a'ltcl•• ppc...ng In rn
(Decemllcr 1928). H~ '....Ole: . . 'n.c~ssar to.umlne an ;ndi~ldu.llane.In order 10 appreci.'c th~<con(ltn.c.oft,he PI;~ 1\ IS'
dtlo fe.1 o( f,ontage Th~ loIS are
ThiS lan.eonta.n, 16 house lots a"eragln,4 eel WI ~ or 11300 lineal f... from ,hesen'.11 by 112 of 230 lin~ar r~1 of utlhtles on the m3m o"e~t an
<onl~r of,hisSlreelln til. end orlll.Jut,' 10lal of 4J~ Ilnul f•• t of "tilll;.' Or 26 r.et p<" 101,
HoweH•• leI us lupp05e th. 'Ir•• , end of ,h. land containinillhe fim JO lOIs 10 lK doubledon ax" A. [Mm'DC a normal block 400 re•• long continuing 20 lots. nor••;nc 45 rcct Tho.!....ould require I",•• 1/201230 hncal r•• t OfUI']Ill.' on ,h. [111"0 end u •••u. and 4 f•• t oru!tlllle. (rom ••nte. 10 ccnle, of til. ma,n st,•• ts. 10,,1 of 710 linnl (tt, for ID lots 0' JS Shnnl rUt of u\Ohlin pt. lot_ an ,ncrnse of 36 per.ent in ,,"hlles r.quired by th. Radburnplan Adml11in,lhe Obv",U~ problems brought up by this or any Olhe. ncw method "rplanning. II would Kcrn "'orlll an c'pe""'.'" to Sa"., from 25 to).() pc'rccnl of I"" ul,Jmnnow ,."ulIed ,n residential l'loe'lhbo,hoods.
Fl:dcral HOUSIIIIAdmin,mluon. Ph",,,I,,, ""r~hborhoodsfO' Sm"fI HOuMS (Wuhinglon.D.C.: U.S. Go,'~rnmcnl Pnnling Offi~. 19191.
12 Ib'd.. p.JI11. fb,d.. p. 64.
.w H~nr)" J. Aa.on. Slw1l'" ""d S.-blidirs (Wuhlnl'on. D.C.: T~ BrOOking< InslIl"'lon.1972). p. IS
1S. Amcncn Soc""y at Plann,nl Off,,"lal•. N, ••;sl#'lIrr 10. 9 (Sqllembtr 19~): 6: Perr)o:"oonon. InlCl\·ic ...·. leon,a. ,,"ew Je.~)'. Janu...y 29. 1979: -"u for BOOIrd ofGo'·crno's.M19S2.APA .... KhlVC1. Wuh,nllon. O.c.
36. Fo. f"rlMr disc..."on. ~c BlIch. ~Ad"ancinllhc Art and S<:i~ncc"
J7. ASPO Hr..,.wlI" (Scplcmber IS. 19~): 7.
31t A s",,"c)" oflhc ASPO H' ..·./ru". 1M hll of Plan"mx A.kisorj· S.rvru 101"0. and rMZOI,i"t {)iff.JI fCHal. lhe><: lcndcncltl.
39. B'Kh. MAd'.. nc,n... - p. j.',
4{l John T. Ho"-.rd. -Cily Planmn!a, a SOCIal Mo"'="m~nl ..... Go~rnm.l:nlll Fun~lIon and aTechnical Profcu,on.
M,n Harvcy S Pcrloff (~d,l PI""",,,t lInd 'M U,b"" Communi,y
{P,mb"rlh, Un"cnuy of PIll.b" ...h P'ess. 1%1. 1'1'_ ISJ·I54.
41 lan~ lacob>. Th, INalh and !.i/. 01 G,.a, Am"';,,,,, CI/ln (N~...• Yo.k: Vinla£<, 8ookl.19611. p. 18./'.ul and Pere;"al Goodman. Communrl".INew York: V,ntagc Booh. 1947). p. H.H~rbertGanl. Th. Urb"n VlllatnJ (Glen~O<':Thc Flcc Press. 1962): 10hn R. S~dC)". MTh~ Slum:I" r.'a1 .. r~. Usc and Use-n." Jou.",,1 of '/rr Am.ri'"n I"slllu" of Pkmn.,s {F~bruar)' 1\lS9).William Moolc. Jr.• 1"M V,mNlI Oh",o (Ncw York: Random Hou"". 1969}. I' 214.
42. KCVln l)'nch. "Q..alny in Deli,n" in la"lcncc 8. Holland (cd.) Who INslgm Am,T/NI'{Ne,,' York Doubleday. 1966). p. lB. He "'enl On 10 d~~ry Ihc lack of inno"alion amonld~"lncrs.conlempwouslyobserv,ng: "Wc nOlicc lhallh~ plan for a n~w pon cily ,n Afr,~a loohsuspiciously lik~ a .Iudcm Ich:me (0' an Amenean ·ne .... lown_·~TheGoodmans also "u~U1oncd
'Ome a~nh~lie a..umplions o( ~lemcnlS of lhe Radbuln plan; "Urban be.u')' d"". not r~"u".
"e~sand park. . And .... lIen linally. rhe a,m i'lO maha eilym lh~ park. a Gard~n COly. Qn.
h' de,pai,~d Qf ell>' lofe allogelhu." In all fairness. Ihe GQOdmanl did app,ov~ o( gre~nlKllI,an,nlegral pari of aarden cilies ....h'eh actually d'd Ml appear at Radburn tx:caus: of lhe CHC"IQbJcclions 10 'h~ir e~pcns~. In Communitu! lh,·y w~r. working toward a dearer ddinition ofurban space{Communilas, p. SO) .
.Jl. J~wd aellu..h and Murray Haulknechl. Urban Rmr"'al: Prop/•. POlilic.and Pla"nin~
(N~\\' York; Doubleday. 19(7). p. 214.
44, For. diJcunioOl of advtK:acy plann,ng IU Paul Davidoff. "'Advocacy and Plu,alLsm inI'lanning."' Journal ollhr Alllnlco" In.fllIW' of Plo",,,rs {N()"~mtx:r. 19651: Lisa R. P~aIU~.
··K.nectionJ on Ad.'ocney Planning" and Rich.,d S. Bolan. "Em~lging Vi~w, (}f Planning" inTh' Comprrh.m,v, Plo,,,,in: p,oer..: 5"'''0/ VI,,,,! (W.shingl(}n. D.C. AII'. 1977).45,
4~. Hertx:n Gans. "Thc FaLlur~ of Urban Renewal. A Critique and Some Propo.als."Commrmor,' (Ap,,11965): 35.
,151
Arch"""lur.1 H'I1979: hnuar\ lJ.
RADBURN
. d S . 1 R."ons;b'Io,> .. Jou,nol 0/ ,I"46. Mel"'" M Wcbber. "ComprehenSlvc Plannlllg an N'. . d ,n Th. ·Comp"h.n"\T
At>U'rirotl hlS/llu" uf Plunn". {November 1%1): 231, 0' repronle
P!annint J'ruuSJ H'" and Hom:,,,.'n:rsh,p. Plan""'J: R'Jld,,,,lal47 Pr~"dcn,'s ConfrreMc on orne UI 'ng
. DC' U S Gov~rn ....nl P"nllnl Officc. 1932)DIS/,Ic.. {Wash,ngton. . -- .. .. Ie b ""e' Hanard Un,vcrs'ly Pres•.
48. Thomas ....dam•. Dt"gn of R."drnllal Ar.'" am' .
19~:~. r~~~: Mumford. 1M Cul,urr or Cui.s {N~w Yor~; Harco..n Brae~ Jo,·anov,~h. 1M..
1918). p. ~17 .'~ l\arional Rcsouren Commmee. U,ba" Plann",g and Urnd Poll...,.. W h IOn51. Fcdcral Hou,ing Administration. ,v.ighborhoodJ B.-/II/o' R,mlll Houj,nJ:( a) ,ng .
D.C.: U.S. Go~rnmenl Prlnun, Olfice. 1947). d P I (ChtalO:S2 Cokman Woodbury. ed .. Urban R.rJrvrlupm,nl Prohl,mJ On 0 lTlTS
Uam:rsllY of C"ica.lo Prrs<. 19D).pp. 278·9). nd C 19~) Th" bookSJ. Ar;"ur U. Gallion. Th. U,ban p"",,,,(N~wYo'k. D
T· VIn~O', 'era I o~'~/"n (~~w York-
. '" II I" 1980 ChnJlophe. unnar. ')' ~ , •11&1 had lo.. r pnn"ngs. IIIC 'os I ., I I addll,on T ..n.... rd and !Ienry
19S31 J4J" hi. book " .....lso ,~,...... reeonl y n. '"Scnbl\Cr. . p. . '" M mn 19S3) drah c_lens,Vc!y ""InHope Rm', Am~,i<'"n SIr"I",r (N~.. York: Houlnton 1 ,.
Radbu,n. ed - E1< urj 199 (March 19721. a~ Me lorexampk. Henry M. Wnllht. "Radburn RC~lSll.. '.! . , 1964 T~
Ch . ~R dburn R""onsld~red Comtrrlio" •rep"nl nfan ea'lier aruele; Al.kn nsll~. I. Ileo: 'dlM ..n,esl of 1M Ii ........
Ial~~~ '::.:,,:.:; ~~i~~:.O~~~~~~~:";~~\:;::;:~:~~~:~Ir"'~;:'I'JdleTrjbuM.rep,;nled in TJrr
R.,ionaJ Pll'n N...·s (December 1964). . F,.,dc,,~k H ea" lr'\S6 The pololieallcaders were aided by sc~ral pUbhca,,~ns.InclUCh~~PO I%Sla~d lhe U S_
~How,o RCIUIlI~ Planned Un,' Dcv~lop...... nl for HotlJ,n, (ChlC:a,O. h' 1; ,4.." ....01101'1
Fcd~ ..1 Hou"n, ....dmi";stral1on·' PI""n.d Un/t INo',kJpm.,,' ,"'II a 0"""
DC' U S Govcr..m~nl Priminl0frlCC. 1%A1(Wash,nglol'l, . .- .. I'l dR ·rJrnliaIE",·,ro"m.n15{AnnArbor
S7. John 8. LllnSlngand Rob<cn W Mara.... onM TJ'
Un,versny of MIchigan. 1970). p- 211. Han' Moun,arnS8 Michacl B. McNally. V1C~ Prc>,d~nl of plann,nl and ~nl,ncc"ng. J
. H , e kin' l..andDcSllnAssoc"IC1.ln'n~1~"......InduS1rie,.lnt~rv",,·.1..n~25.1980: a~ 0 .par ~. _ Yo o-,n' Seplcmber 197827. 1980: hTh~ Mudowland T"'~~I Sm~ll of SUCC<:SJ. BUlld",g. I" .
(reprinl) '79 ~nd d Jailcr ~Modd Communil)'S9. Paul Goldbc'g~r.Nc... Yo,1r nm,. .... 1'."19. 1 ; ,rc .Lillic Changed a' SO.~ Pla"n,ng M"J:,,=in. (May 1979). .
60 John Gallery. "Radbu,n. 1929-1979." Annual M~~ung. ~OClCIY of. A'" "79 J(}hn G.ll..,. Inl... iew. S.vann.h. Gcorg,a. Ap,,1 S.lo"ani. p. .
1979. . Th P . (LQl'oIGo,,,,mn.,,' Plannint61, I","national Cny Management As.oelatlon. , ,acller~
lWalhlnglon. D,C: 1979~.
(
E. L. flJRCH
(
150
______________n