I have chose to write my final paper on the influence the values of the scientific revolution, as propagated throughout the enlightenment, catalyzed major change in the realm of urban planning. To this end the ideas and case studies i’ve chosen have all been ones that directly deal with science, and it’s pervasive influence over the development of both 18th,19th, and 20th century conceptualizations of urban environments. One such theory i came across that i found both extremely important as it is a theory only 50 years old, is that of New Environmentalism.

New Environmentalism is significant, especially in terms of Sciences influence over its development, because it was a theory, that in no way can be misconstrued as not being completely developed on the basis of scientific ideology and methodology. Thus, New Environmentalism, a radical theory of urban planning that developed in the 1960’s argued that science held the solution to the social and economic problems that had pervaded 20th century, in this context, specifically American urban environments. Further, its significant as Bradbury points out that such a theory highlights the hegemonic role of both scientists and scientific pragmatism that had penetrated so deeply 20th century society.

This theory held that study of biology and psychology had yielded positive results regarding the casual influence of physical environments over social phenomena. Therefore, its goals were to determine a science of behaviour and act using these ideals to solve social problems through objective scientifically designed design formula. In essence, the idea was that changing the physical environments of urban inhabitants, by using ideas founded on scientific principles would solve the social ills of modern society. They even used studies involving mice and other lab animals to prove that in reality such a theory, founded on biological principles would yield positive results in urban environments. Things that were especially important in this American context were things like industrial alienation, Ghettoization, and racism, and it was argued, that these ideas, along with a comprehensive research and development program spearheaded by the US government and once again founded on scientific principles, would solve the major issues facing American society.

I do though think, that doing tests in labs, and arguing over scientific theory, ignores in many way the basic unit that should be studied, the human being itself. Just because a  lab animal reacts in such a manner, does not mean the brain of a human will do the same. It just seems in some ways, rather foolish to argue that simply science and science alone with solve the problems of our Urban Environments. Yes Psychology, and Biology are valuable tools in understanding social phenomena, but there are also non scientific disciplines and elements that must be taken into account. How can science really lead to fostering a sense of community, and thus urban harmony? and it what ways does science really give us accurate knowledge. Once again this is a theory, a construct, and one that has since been disproven, thus what validity to scientific theories hold once they no longer are purported to be accurate? Also such a theory was focused on design formula alone, once again ignoring many of the other features that contribute to creating harmonious urban environments.

So i ask you. What role does and should science hold within the Urban Planning profession? Can well articulated and studied theories solve the social problems of society, or are scientists wasting there time? What about New Environmentalism, do you believe that such an idea is plausible, how much effect does urban design formula alone hold over there populations? Is science the answer, and if not, what is?  WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We began the class by going over the criticism that we as students provided to Brigitte regarding the course. In general, many had positive feedback, and thought the course material was intriguing. Even so, there were a few points of contention. Some argued there was a lack of expectations. To this end, we went over both what we as students see as the goal of the course, as well as what Brigitte sees as the main goals for our learning. Students highlighted that we were learning about the factual history of urban planning, its societal impacts, and the role of ideology in perpetuating all of this. Brigitte added that the crucial thing is to denaturalize the study of urban planning, therefore coming to the realization that urban planning is a product of a certain time and place, and that this context is what leads urban planners to re imagine their cities. Moving on we discussed Magnitogorsk. We especially highlighted the importance of the fact that the Soviet Union brought in a German Architect and American Engineers to build their model city. Continuing, we began to talk about Milutin and his plan for a linear city. Thus, hypothetically his city could keep expanding infinitely. It is a city based on an assembly line and therefore, production organizes the layout of the city, and rational principles are introduced to govern the development. Also in this case, one sees the separation of agricultural, industrial, and residential areas, as well as the collectivization of different functions. We then moved on to the discussion questions. May was chosen because Germany was an industrial leader, and a technical expert. Additionally, Magnitogorsk was supposed to be rational, industrious, beautiful place, a model city Egalitarian in nature, with equal standards of living. It was supposed that the Idea of the neighborhood unit would also apply, with each superblock having its own services. Ernst May eventually gets kicked out of the Soviet Union. His building work wasn’t good and he was blamed for the problems of topography. Essentially he became the scapegoat for why it wasen’t going to plan. Also one begins to see modernism depicted as a bourgeois style, and hence unsuitable for the model Soviet city. We then moved on to the problems and shortcomings in the cities construction. The ones we highlighted were that there were too many workers and not enough housing, construction efforts were slow, and workers are not provided with suitable materials. Also it fails in its egalitarian efforts, we see new areas like Amerikanka and Berezka, settlements built for American specialists. Although those who end up living there are the bureaucrats and the elites. It also becomes a place where you have to walk enormous distances, there is no access to clean water and this results in a typhus epidemic. There is inadequate heating, And there is really poor transportation and very limited public transportation. Therefore Magnitogorsk was a failure.

Throughout this Semester, I have been taking two classes directly related to the structure of the city, and its implications upon its citizens. While this class has so far focused primarily on the development of the modern industrial city during the 18th and 19th centuries, my urban social geography class tends to deal with the contemporary problems facing cities today. Recently in my geography class, we have been talking about the neo-liberalization of cities, a trend who’s roots one can see flourishing during the 1980s.  Therefore, learning about the development of urban industrial centers and the fears 19th century social scientists felt regarding them, contrasted with these contemporary neo liberal trends in urban planning, has led me to wonder about whether much has actually changed in our society.

At this point many of you may be wondering what exactly I mean by that. What I mean to say is that I have just found many of the fears expressed by 19th century social scientists and commentators, and many of the problems they identified, not only present in our 21st century contemporary society, but one might even argue emblematic of it. Some of the problems and fears that we see as present in both era’s are, Money becoming the primary mark of power. Something, Mark Twain’s “The Gilded Age” so powerfully connotated. The protection of our natural resources. Something Henry David Thoreau emphasized in “Walden”. The privatization of public utilities. Once considered the norm during the first implementations of technologies like public transit, and water distribution, now one sees this happening all over again.

Basically what i find so interesting is that the neo-liberal trend is one that can be seen as “rendering the social domain economic” (Keil 2009). In other words, making capital the basis of all social relations and the governor of society. At the same time what occurs to me is that this same process was occurring as the modern industrial city was first birthed. Capital was the primary mark of power, social class was directly related to your occupation, and workers repeated dull tasks. I found this echoed even further when in reference to his job at the Mill my roommate said to me, “at a certain point the machine just becomes a part of you. I am the machine”. So I ask you. Do you think that the neo liberal paradigm is one that can be seen as re occurring? Is it unique to our own contemporary society? Are there connections to the past? How new are the ideas that dominate neo liberal politics really?

Please respond and let me know what you think? This was a completely opinion based post so i want yours as well. I am definitely not saying that I am 100% right. What do You think?