Development theory and

Urban History

Critical Review of What is a city?, Lewis Mumford, Architectural Record (1937)

Urban Design M.Arch, S1

Reshma Mariam Georgi

9/2/2017
 A Critical Review of What is a city?, Lewis Mumford, Architectural Record (1937)

In "What is a City?" Lewis Mumford attempts to communicate to the present and future generations of
planners his ideas on planning cities. The author sees the failure to understand the social functions of
the city as the handicap of current planning of cities. Rather than re-examining the physical environment
of the city, the author suggests seeking answers to the question what is the city as a social institution?
He cites the definition given by John Stow as the most insightful as it speaks of the change in human
behaviors and interactions that occur when an individual changes residence from the country to the city.

The author forms his definition from the analogy of a play, comparing the city to a well-designed stage
set which highlights and intensifies the actors and the play. This social drama is what author says the city
creates and the suburb lacks. He then offers this definition as a summary of his understanding "The
essential physical means of a city's existence are the fixed site, the durable shelter, the permanent
facilities for assembly, interchange, and storage; the essential social means are the social division of
labor, which serves not merely the economic life but the cultural process. The city in its complete sense,
then, is a geographic plexus, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theater of social
action, and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity.

This social aspect is said to be reflected in the physical form of the city with uniformity in structures
demonstrating closeness in social function and disordered plans reflecting social functions that are more
complex. The author draws the conclusion that the social facts such as the interrelationship between
schools, libraries, community centers, theatres etc. are primary, and physical organization of a city must
be compliant to its needs. This is contrary to the trend of development in the 19th century that ignored
the social nucleus.

The author then discusses how a desirable size of the city can be established. He argues that if the city is
defined by its social aspect and if its needs are defined by opportunities to various social groups then
limitations of size should be based on its social function He criticizes Le Corbusiers approach in
determining the ideal size of a city based on the urban population of Paris. Mumford says that the
expression of size as a function of social relations it serves is a more rational way of planning.

He also mentions an optimum size beyond which the costs outweigh the benefits of expansion. A very
dense region cannot foster to social function effectively because of the congestion and traffic of its
facilities. To accommodate this social intercourse, Mumford proposes certain limitations on size, density
and area. The author believed that these limitations in turn would allow the planner to decentralize the
city through the use of multiple centers. The author here supports this idea of small clustered
communities also referred to as polynucleated city and disapproves "mononucleated city" with its
solitary center.Mumford refers to these as highway less towns and predicts that this trend
decentralization of development will increase with effective functional zoning as urban islands.

He concludes by saying that we should aim for these results which produce the required social activity
and drama through careful planning and acute understanding rather than expecting the amassing of
population to do so. This duty falls to coming generation of planners.