The Shared Possibility of Different Conceptions of the City: Howard, Wright and Le Corbusier, Essay Example

The influence of Howard, Wright and Le Corbusier on modern-city planning is readily apparent, forming a sort of holy triumvirate in regards to how city-planning is conceived. In this sense, one of their obvious similarities is not in their respective theories, but rather in the compelling nature of these theories that have made them so influential. In other words, what is the common truth of these theorists in regards to city-planning that makes them so influential? From another perspective, these three thinkers offer radically different versions of city-planning, and perhaps by approaching them first from their apparent differences, the subterranean continuity between all three, which we have defined in terms of the pertinence of their influence as a starting point, may then appear on the surface of our investigation.

Starting with the vision of Le Corbusier, perhaps his distinction from the other two theorists in question, lies in its radical modernism. In other words, what is at stake in Le Corbusier is a “new architecture…for a machine age, and its elements could already be recognized in industrial products.” (Relph, 112) What is crucial to Le Corbusier’s vision is thus the necessity to conceive of the city itself as a machine and therefore what is crucial to this vision is a certain machinization of the human. This world-view can be considered to be consistent with various Enlightenment narratives of the desacralization of nature.

It is in this sense, that the contrast with Frank Lloyd Wright and Howard becomes apparent. In the case of the latter Howard, this contrast is explicit, for example, in works such as the Garden City. Here, Le Corbusier’s radical mechanization of the city-space is contrasted with a necessity to nature that upholds its descralization, not through a recognition of its mystical quality, but rather through an understanding of its unique importance to human life. Hence, “Howard was directly influenced by Edward Bellamy’s ideas about a future socialist society” (Relph, 56) but the anti-religious bent in socialism does not entail an anti-nature viewpoint, which is perhaps implicit in Le Corbusier.

Wright also serves as an antipode in this triumvirate, insofar as he is a uniquely American architect, following the American ideology of individualism above all. This is most explicitly reflected in his city-planning for Broadacre City, wherein the underlying principles are based upon the care to realize self-determination and thus autonomy; hence, “self-determination could be achieved by the spacious layout of his Broadacre City” (Girardet, 62), places individual existence at the heart of the city.

Three different world views thus become apparent when considering the city-planning of these three architects. In regards to Le Corbusier, an industrialization of life, consistent with the realization that life itself is nothing but a machine, and thus city life is machinic. Howard, in contrast, presents us with a utopian socialist image, where nature is not placed into conflict with society, but rather is used to enhance the collective life of the city, for the city itself is a collective existence. Lastly, in the case of Wright, the city is essentially reduced to individual existences within a city-space, and therefore the city is not conceived from the viewpoint of the city, but rather from the indiivudal who lives in the city.

Considering such radical differences, where does the point of similarity lie? This was alluded to at the beginning of the paper in terms of influence. But this influence is adequately expressed in the lectures: what is common to all thinkers is that “they planned the utopian rational city.” (Code, 8) I would interpret this remark as follows: they all share the presupposition that an ideal image of the city exists and that it is furthermore possible to realize it. This explains a common starting point for their ultimately diverse projects.

Works Cited

Code, Lewis. »WiredCities. Community, Technology and Changing Urban Places. Lecture Module 4.« 2012-13.

Girardet, Herbert. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban Living. London, UK: Gaia, 1996.

Relph, Edward. The Modern Urban Landscape. Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1987.