![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
This article explores the changing modes and mechanisms of the transatlantic dialogue between urban planners from the perspective of US urbanists. During the early post-war period, this dialogue intensified quickly. US planners were involved in their country's broad efforts to provide assistance to and build strong political ties with Western European nations. Accordingly, they assumed the role of tutors vis-à-vis their European peers. Due to urban America's apparent flaws and the success of European planning projects, however, their interest in Europe broadened considerably during the 1950s. Initially, the initiative of individuals remained crucial for the flow of planning information from Europe to the USA, and European immigrants and émigrés helped facilitate transatlantic transfers. Looking at Europe, American planners sought to address the shortcomings of the domestic practice of planning as they perceived them. Europe served as an argumentative tool for US experts who were eager to change the socio-political framework that limited their impact on urban development in their home country. Information about European planning was transmitted through a diverse set of channels and the biographies of many of the experts involved with transatlantic exchange remind us of the complex international planning networks that existed throughout the twentieth century. American planners' interest in Europe remained biased towards specific regions and topics. Nevertheless, US planners negotiated the way in which they brought their limited influence to bear on American urban environments in a transnational context. The framework that supported their integration into international planning discussions became increasingly institutionalized towards the end of the research period.
Notes on contributor
Andreas Joch is a doctoral fellow in residence at the German Historical Institute in Washington, DC. He studied modern and medieval history as well as political science at the University of Giessen, Germany and University College Cork, Ireland. A PhD candidate at Giessen, he is currently working on a project examining transatlantic connections in the urban field. His dissertation project focuses on German-speaking architects and city planners who relocated to the USA between 1920 and 1940. Their careers serve as a starting point for a discussion of exchange processes, city perceptions, and the transnational forces that impacted post-war city development in the USA.
Notes
1 Schocken, “Must Our Cities Remain Ugly?,” 218.
2 The quote was taken from the Fellowship Application Schocken sent to the Guggenheim Foundation in August 1957. Schocken File, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Archives.
3 After the war, Schocken continued his career in the USA as a planner in Detroit, MI; Lawrence, KS; and St. Louis, MO. He also taught planning classes at the University of Kansas.
4 Schocken, Planning in Europe, passim.
5 Kenneth Jackson makes the argument that US cities suffered in comparison with European cities because the people responsible for their development did not bother to learn from urban development processes in Europe and Asia. Jackson, “Transnational Borderlands,” 13.
6 Hanchett, “Roots of the ‘Rennaissance’.”
7 Boel, European Productivity Agency.
8 Pells, Not Like Us; De Grazia, Irresistible Empire; Lüdtke, Marssolek, and von Saldern, Amerikanisierung.
9 Schildt, “Amerikanische Einflüsse”; Castillo, “Design Pedagogy”; Diefendorf, “American Influences.”
10 Ward, “Learning from the US.” Kwak provides an overview of dissertations dealing with the influence of US concepts and aid on global urban developments: Kwak, “Research in Urban History.”
11 Taylor, Urban Planning Theory since 1945, 38.
12 Wagner, “American Versus German Planning,” 325f.
13 At the time of Schocken's European tour, Kevin Lynch and other American planning researchers were attempting to assess the aesthetic character of the city through the perspective of the city dwellers. Lynch, Image of the City; Cf. also Albers, “Amerikanische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Stadtplanung,” 16–19.
14 On the problems that European urbanists from the CIAM circle faced in this context in the USA, see Mumford, Defining Urban Design, especially 27.
15 For an overview, see Lenger, “Urbanisierung als Suburbanisierung.”
16 In Trams or Tailfins?, Logemann presents a comparison of consumer culture in Germany and the USA and details the variances visible in its spatial manifestations: Logemann, Trams or Tailfins?
17 John Nolen, for example, was extremely interested in German city planning and emphasized its advanced state when compared to US endeavours in the field. Nolen continued to praise German planning during the later stages of his career. Nolen, “German City Planning”; “City Planning in Germany.”
18 Lewis, Planning the Modern City, 16.
19 Scott, American City Planning; Adamson, “Looking Back”; Fishman, “American Planning Tradition.”
20 Peach, “Wohnfords”; Lewis, Early Encounter. A book that illustrates the perspective on transatlantic relations in architecture popularized by the protagonists of the modern movement is Walter Curt Behrendt's Modern Building, published in the late 1930s. Behrendt, Modern Building. For further discussion, see Kentgens-Craig, Bauhaus and America.
21 Domhardt argues that the urban planning ideas circulating among the members of the CIAM were only developed into a comprehensive concept after many of the European CIAM protagonists had relocated to the USA. What was presented as CIAM planning in the 1940s and 1950s was heavily influenced by experiences and contacts made in the USA. Domhardt, Heart of the City, 76.
22 Nightingale, “Three Global Ghettos,” 257f; Reiff and Ethington, “Introduction,” passim.
23 Saunier, Another Global City.
24 Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, chapter 6; Hall, Cities of Tomorrow; Ward, “Pioneer ‘Global Intelligence Corps’.”
25 Ward has published a comprehensive synthesis on the international aspects of urban planning in the twentieth century. Ward, Planning Twentieth Century City. Cf. also Albers, Entwicklung der Stadtplanung.
26 Ward, “International Diffusion of Planning.”
27 Nasr and Volait, “Introduction: Transporting Planning”, xi.
28 Saunier, “Atlantic Crosser.”
29 Klemek, Transatlantic Collapse.
30 Orillard, “Urban Design's ‘Townscape’ Origins”; Schubert, “Die Nachbarschaftsidee im Wandel”; with a geographical focus on Sweden and Germany, Kuchenbuch discusses the transantional debates surrounding the neighourhood idea. Kuchenbuch, Geordnete Gemeinschaft.
31 Lundin, “Mediators of Modernity.” A contemporary example is the Buchanan report on traffic planning problems. The report, commissioned by the British Ministry of Transport, devoted more pages to the USA than to any other country. Crowther et al., Traffic in Towns.
32 Thuermer, “Americans Help Rebuild Europe.”
33 Burchard, “Urban Aesthetic,” 114f.
34 Burchard, “Meaning of Architecture,” 372.
35 Burchard, “Urban Aesthetic,” 115.
36 Kwak, “Research in Urban History,” 324.
37 This interest in the ugly and socially harmful side of American cities induced the later outpouring of publications on the urban crisis: Blake, God's Own Junkyard; Tunnard, Man-Made America; Gordon, Sick Cities; Gruen, Heart of Our Cities.
38 Henry Bruère's Citation1951 report on British planning illustrates this point. Bruère, at the time president of the National Municipal League, was impressed with the success British planners had in fostering economically as well as socially ‘balanced communities’ with their housing developments and encouraged American experts strongly to consider their approaches. Bruère, “Modern City,” 569. On the American perspective on central business districts in European cities see below, the section on European planning in the American debate.
39 Grebler, Urban Renewal, 11.
40 The federal government's commitment to urban problems that culminated in the founding of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1965 had increased significantly since the crisis years of the early 1930s. European observers were envious of the generous assistance American cities received for their renewal projects. For a contemporary comment, see Hebebrand, “Erneuerung in Europäischer Sicht,” 228f. On federal urban policy, see Gelfand, Nation of Cities.
41 Grebler, Urban Renewal, 14.
42 Jacobs, Death and Life; Anderson, Federal Bulldozer; Klemek, Transatlantic Collapse.
43 Blumenfeld, Life Begins at 65.
44 Hein, “Maurice Rotival,” 2002.
45 Grebler, Europe's Reborn Cities; Grebler, Urban Renewal. In addition to these monographs, Grebler published eight articles dealing with the subject.
46 Grebler attributed his quick ‘Americanization’ to the successful professional transition he experienced in the first years after his arrival. Grebler, German-Jewish Immigrants, especially 65–9.
47 Grebler's first job in the USA was to compile a memorandum on the negative effects of the First World War on the German economy for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The memorandum was later turned into a book. Grebler: Cost of World War.
48 “Urban Studytours.”
49 The examples were taken from a 1954 study trip organized by J. Marshall Miller. A report on the trip was published by Creese: Creese, “Impression of European Planning.”
50 Reports on the tour were published in The Washington Post on 21 September 1968 (“Land Planners See Europe Ahead”) and 23 September 1967 (“ULI Study Group Touring Europe”).
51 The Rockefeller Foundation financed a European tour conducted during the summer of 1957 by a federal urban renewal administrator. The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation funded Grebler's first trip in the early 1950s, which resulted in the publication of Europe's Reborn Cities as well as Schocken's trip towards the end of the decade.
52 Evidence can be found in the reports on urban study tours published in the The Sun on 22 June 1958 (“Gaudreau Praises German Planning”) and The Hartford Courant on 30 October 1955 (“Lesson from Abroad: In Rebuilt West Germany, Hartford's City Manager Finds a Basic Parallel to Connecticut's Post-flood Problem”).
53 Cf. Philip Wagner's contribution in this issue.
54 Spielvogel, “IFHTP,” 36. Surprisingly, Spielvogel appeared to be previously unfamiliar with the concept of a planning exhibition as a medium of exchange. In the past, exhibitions had greatly contributed to the diffusion of planning knowledge. Collins, Werner Hegemann, ch. 2; Chabard, “Competing Scales.”
55 The small international study week on pedestrian areas in central cities that took place in Barcelona in 1966 is one example. It featured two contributions from the USA. See the material in Victor Gruen Papers, Box 54, Folder ‘Barcelona Traffic Conference’, American Heritage Center, Laramie, WY. The proceedings of the 1958 seminar were published in the following year: Miller, New Life.
56 Grebler, Urban Renewal, 88. At the same time, British planners paid close attention to US new town experiments and especially to the Radburn design. Parsons, “Community Design.”
57 Schocken, Planning in Europe, 5.
58 Stein, “Stockholm Builds New Town”; Greene, “Planning Environment”; Van Beusekom, “Housing in the Netherlands.”
59 The career of Yngve Larsson provides an example. In 1962, the Swedish planner relayed his insight into the planned development of Stockholm in an article published in the JAIP. He had participated in the National Conference on City planning held in Cincinnati in 1935. In the 1960s, he returned to the USA as a visiting professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Larsson, “Building a City.”
60 Searles' ideas were published in The Washington Post on 15 September 1957 (“‘Tivoli’ Could Spice Southwest D.C.”).
61 Schocken, Planning in Europe, 12.
62 Grebler, Europe's Reborn Cities. The Washington Post (“Vitality of the Urban Center Seen in Europe's Rebuilt Cities,” 8 May 1955) and New York Times (“European Cities Get New Centers,” 17 April 1955) also picked up on this aspect of Grebler's observations.
63 New York planner Hugh Pomeroy, too, was ‘especially impressed’ by the introduction of pedestrian malls and the general vitality of central cities that he had seen in Europe and he felt that urban centres in ‘the United States are lagging needlessly in meeting the problems of traffic, parking, urbanization, and public housing’. New York Times, 5 October 1958 (“U.S. Held Lagging in City Planning: Expert Back From Europe Cites Solutions There to Housing and Traffic”).
64 Kiek, “Europe's Fifth Avenue.” The editor's note was published on page one of the same issue. Gruen is mentioned on page 6.
65 On Gruen's career in the USA see Hardwick, Mall Maker.
66 Cf. the comment Gruen received from European sociologists and demographers after he had delivered the keynote lecture during an international conference on the future of European cities in Vienna in 1963. Gruen, “Die europäische Großstadt,” 39–41.
67 Cf. Klemek's discussion of Burchard's admiring comments about the acceptance of far-reaching state controls by the German public. Klemek, Transatlantic Collapse, 226.
68 Astrid Monson was born in Berlin to American parents. She came to the USA as a young child.
69 The quote was taken from a letter Donald Monson sent to Ludwig Hilberseimer on 4 February 1948. Ludwig Hilberseimer Collection (LHC), Series 4.3/Box 4. The Art Institute of Chicago.
70 Monson and Monson, “Report on Sweden,” 39.
71 Huxtable, “America.”
72 Burchard, “Urban Aesthetic,” 122.
73 Bauer, “Do Americans Hate Cities?” 2.