Howards Town Planning vs that of Archigram the Waking and Plugin Cities - Essay Example

To compare and contrast Ebenezer Howard’s Ideas of town planning, such as the ‘Garden and that of Archigram, in particular the Waking and Plug in Cities Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………3 Urban design – history and characteristics …………………………………….4 Howard and Archigam – Background ………………………………………….6 Basic principals of urban planning expressed by Howard and Archigram…..7 Howard and urban reconstruction – intervention of Herron and Cook………8 Howard and social revolution of the city ………………………………………11 Application of Howard’s theory in practice – materialization of ideas including inWalking and Plug in Cities …………………………………11 Social impact of ‘The Garden City’, the ‘Walking’ and the ‘Plug in’ Cities …………………………………………………………………………….16 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………….19 References ………………………………………………………………………..21 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………….23 Introduction The construction and the development of urban environment has been an issue examined thoroughly in the literature. In this context, several theorists have proposed ‘models’ of urban planning that could be applied in cities around the world. The form of these models has been in accordance with the social and the political conditions related with each particular city. However, in most cases there was a distinct tension for the ‘liberalization’ of cities from the influences of capitalism and conservatism – as these two social theories could be understood within each particular society. Towards this direction, Ebenezer Howard has been considered as the person who ‘put forward a new physical form and structure for urban growth which would reintroduce a balanced and ecological relationship between the city-of limited size and population-and the countryside-of sufficient size to support the city with all necessary goods and material-as well as a balance between the varied functions of the city, again as a result of the strict limitation of its size and population’ (Frey, 1999, 18). One of the most known study of Howard has been the ‘Garden City’ in which Howard states his ideas regarding the town planning and its potential forms in the cities of his era – in his case the city under examination had been London. Apart from Howard, many other theorists have tried to respond to the increased need for innovative proposals regarding the urban planning mostly in big cities. In this context, a group of young London architects, created in 1961 a ‘magazine’ called Archigram which has ‘dominated the architectural avant garde in the 1960s and early 1970s with its playful, pop-inspired visions of a technocratic future’ (Design Museum, 2007). Archigram was published in 1961 on ‘a large sheet of the cheapest available paper; filled with Greene’s poems and sketches of architectural projects designed by Cook, Michael ‘Spider’ Webb and other friends, the magazine voiced their frustration with the intellectual conservatism of the British architectural establishment’ (Design Museum, 2007). Archigram had a significant influence on the urban design of the specific period (1960’s).Today Archigram’s proposals are still considered as unique and innovative plans for the urban design area. However, these plans have remained in the paper and have never been applied in real terms. Urban design – history and characteristics Urban design has been developed throughout the years in accordance with the needs and the potentials of each particular society. Moreover, the structure of the particular physical environment has been also considered as having a major role on the development of appropriate plans of urban planning. At a first level, it has been stated that urban design is geographically limited in terms that it can be applied in ‘areas of a limited size, about half a mile (0.8 km) square’ (Frey, 1999, 14. In order to understand the role and the development of urban design it would be necessary to refer to its definition as it has been formulated throughout the years. More specifically, urban design can be considered as ‘an activity that should be shared by and be the responsibility of all those involved in and accountable for urban development and regeneration; its task is to improve by design the city regions, the citys and its districts physical form and structure: the network of important public streets and squares, and individual spaces’ (Frey, 1999, 16). However, although urban design has a series of particular characteristics as described above it can be differentiated in certain cases in accordance with the needs of a specific region and the standards of the relevant physical environment. On the other hand, Parker (2004, 51) has examined the development of urban planning around the world and found that ‘whereas in the past, historians had paid attention to important architecture and the aesthetics of urban design, by the middle of the nineteenth century, the growth of the major European and North American cities had given rise to the new professions of civic engineering and town planning that, of necessity, adopted a holistic approach to urban development’. In fact the above period has been the critical point of the transition from the ‘traditional’ architectural and urban planning designs to modern ones which have been often criticized for their simplicity and the absence of complex features (a characteristic of the traditional urban design). Moreover, Frey (1999, 14) supported that in accordance with the historical ‘precedent’ a ‘good city evolves on the basis of local characteristics and design principles, not by mere chance while good urban structures and forms-those that enable and enhance urban activities, improve on the well-being of the citizens and create a balanced relationship with their local and global environment-are generally preserved and therefore long-lasting because they function well and express their and their citizens history, collective memory, values and beliefs and pride’. Under these terms in order for a particular urban design to be applicable in current social and environmental conditions, it has to be formulated primary in accordance with the needs of the specific population trying to keep the balance between the functional operation and the aesthetic of the structure. Howard and Archigram – Background Howard has been a significant theorist in the area of urban development. His main study, the ‘Garden City’ has been ‘a unique combination of proposals already made by others presenting the possible realizations of the ideal while a wide range of innovations and cross-fertilizations have been included’ (Fishman, 1998, 127). As for Archigram, this appeared as already mentioned above in 1961 when ‘a group of dissident British neophyte architects - Warren Chalk, Peter Cook, Dennis Crompton, David Greene, Ron Herron, and Mike Webb - joined forces to produce an alternative architectural broadsheet as a venue for their drawings and collages; in keeping with their enthusiasm for the immediacy of information-age electronics, they called the new publication Archigram, liking the titles association with "telegram" and "aerogramme’ (Sanders, 1998, 108). It should be noticed that the appearance of Archigram in the British society has been made in a period that was characterised by severe turbulences worldwide. More specifically, it has been stated that Archigram appeared in a period during which ‘politics had skipped a generation when John F. Kennedy was elected president of the United States in 1960; the theories of Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss were igniting the intelligentsia; as were the films of Jean-Luc Godard, Federico Fellini and François Truffaut in cinema’ (Design Museum, 2007). Under these conditions, the structure and the content of Archigram had to be in accordance with the social and political conditions of its era. The presentation of ideas and themes that were unique for the specific period of time (1960s) has been the point of difference between Archigram and the rest urban planning theories of its period. In fact, it could be stated that Archigram has been an urban planning theory presented through images, a scheme that has been unique until today. Basic principals of urban planning expressed by Howard and Archigram Howard based his proposals related with the urban planning on the ‘principle of cooperation’. The above issue has been examined by Ward who found that one of the main characteristics of Howard’s proposals was the fact that the ‘garden city had to be built on land that should have been purchased at agricultural value and owned and managed collectively by the citizens of the garden city and the surrounding agricultural belt’ (Ward, 3). In other words, the collective dimension was a primary characteristic of Howard’s proposals. Moreover, it is noticed that Howard accepted that ‘individual garden cities might develop in different ways, some more capitalist-oriented, others more collectivist’ (Ward, 3). This means that Howard’s ideas on urban planning could be applied easily in any urban environment as there would be no obstacles towards the realization of the ‘ideal’ urban planning as designed and presented by Howard. As for the Archigram, it has been noticed that the main reason for its creation has been the presentation of a ‘new generation of architecture’ (Sanders, 1998, 108). On the other hand, it seems that ‘like the groups Modernist forebears, the members of Archigram were careful readers of culture; their work shaped by the question of how architecture could keep pace with and respond to social change; but Archigram differed from mainstream Modernists on one fundamental count that had far-reaching implications for their practice: they wholeheartedly embraced what many of their countercultural contemporaries shunned - postwar consumer culture’ (Sanders, 1998, 108). Regarding specifically the value of Archigram in the formulation of advanced projects of urban planning, it has been noticed by Shonfield (2000, 62) that ‘the influential work of Archigram, a group of avant-garde designers working in London, reassesses the inside and outside; it expresses the tensions between contemporary moves away from containment, rules and convention, expressed in the growing acceptance of, and fascination with, both sexual promiscuity and mind-expanding drugs, and the continued preoccupation of the profession with systematisation revealed in the continued promotion of the Modular (as opposed to the Permissive) Society by the building industry’. The targets set by the creators of Archigram for the creation of an extremely innovative urban space have not been realized mostly because the relevant proposals could not be applied in practice. More specifically, in accordance with the creators of Archigram, cities around the world face a lot of problems regarding their urban planning. These problems are represented in Archigram through a series of innovative images and graphs, the most characteristic of which are the ‘Walking City’ (1964) and the ‘Plug-In City’ (1964) which are being presented in the Appendices section. Howard and urban reconstruction – intervention of Herron and Cook In Garden City Howard has stated a series of prerequisites for the creation of the ideal urban planning. More specifically, in Garden City it is noticed that the main concept of urban planning should be based ‘on the understanding that growth of the big city is, owing to increasing traffic congestion and difficulty of access to the centre, self-defeating’ (Frey, 1999, 49). For this reason, the creation of a Garden City could help towards the improvement of daily life of citizens. Moreover, Howard ‘presents a new pattern of city development, that of self-contained and self-sufficient but linked centres, separated by agricultural land that supports them and provides the opportunity of a symbiosis with the natural environment; the model rejects the suburb as unacceptable compromise and achieves relief of congestion through decentralisation of all the citys functions’ (Frey, 1999, 49). The above model can be very useful towards the creation of a well structured City in which environment will be respected at the highest possible level. The only ‘disadvantage’ of this model is that it can applied only in cities with a specific size and population density (for Garden City the relevant number should be 32,000) while its activities will be focused on the following areas: ‘business, industry, administration, education, public parks and private gardens’ (Frey, 1999, 49). The structure of urban planning followed by Howard has been examined also by Knack (1998) who found that Howard ‘surrounded his garden city with a stretch of countryside that he variously called a Country Belt, Agriculture Belt, or Rural Belt (The term Green Belt was first used by Unwin in the plan for Letchworth); Unlike todays version, the rural belt included farms and villages; the town itself was to occupy only 1,000 of the 6,000 acres that Howard considered necessary for a garden city’. In other words, the main aspect of Howard’s urban planning has been the protection and the promotion of the ‘areas of green’ in his Garden City. Moreover, it has been found by Knack (1998, 6) that the specific idea of Howard for the creation of a ‘rural belt’ may have been derived from another principle of the above researcher – the ‘town cluster’. In accordance with the above principle ‘when the garden city reaches a population of 32,000, its time to establish another city a short distance away, separated by another country belt’. The above ideas of Howard could be criticized however using the Archigram’s proposals regarding the architecture used in today’s cities. More specifically, it seems that Archigram is based on the view that a ‘green city’ as proposed by Howard is a rather unfeasible target and for this reason they have proceeded to the creation of alternative schemes that would be suited more in current living standards in cities around the world. In this context, Sanders (1998, 108) has noticed that ‘Archigrams most radical innovations, however, were inspired by its creators’ ambition to create an architecture that did not so much capture the look of consumer capitalism as obey its logic’ (Sanders, 1998, 108). Moreover, it has been proved that ‘rather than increased profits, Archigrams vision of a throwaway architecture was fueled by the promise of personal freedom; acknowledging the precarious state of modern subjectivity was a source not of consternation but of celebration; the groups ideal client - sadly, they never realized a single building - was a modern nomad, always on the move’ (Sanders, 1998, 108). The above issues prove that Archigram has many differences if compared with the study of Howard on the ‘Green City’. However, although Archigram seems to be closer to the conditions and standards of modern life, in fact it has been proved that ‘Green City’ would be possibly more a more feasible scheme in current social and political conditions. Howard and social revolution of the city Howard has tried to create a city which would have all the characteristics of a ‘true stakeholder community’ where ‘the collective ownership of land and regular returns of enhanced land values to the community created the basis for an active participatory democracy’ (Ward, 5). However, in order for such a model to be applied successfully, the close cooperation between the people of the community would be necessary. On the other hand, the considerations for the public health which have been extensively presented and analyzed in Howard’s study, could be to the restructuring of existing social frameworks that would influence the performance of the above scheme. It should be noticed though that Howard ‘was not in favour of a return to low-density village-type communities and would even have tolerated the population densities of inner-London for his new Garden Cities, but he did not favour garden suburbs such as those created by his disciple Raymond Unwin in Hampstead’ (Parker, 2004, 54). The above findings can lead to the assumption that although Howard created a complete plan for the urban design in its general term, in fact the application of the relevant scheme in practice faces many obstacles mostly because of the severe differentiations in the social and political policies applied in each particular occasion. Application of Howard’s theory in practice – materialization of ideas including in Walking and Plug in Cities The model of Howard regarding a Green City could be possibly used for the design of an urban planning that would be used in a modern city. However, there are a few issues that should be taken into consideration before proceeding to any relevant initiative. More specifically, the proposals of Howard have been found to have certain weaknesses. One of these weaknesses refers to Howard’s model of a ‘town cluster’. In this context, the study of Frey (1999, 18) showed that this model ‘was not able to halt the growth and suburbanisation of our cities, perhaps mainly because the rate of expansion of the city in terms of land, industrial development and population was so high that control and containment would have been difficult’. On the other hand, Parker (2004, 54) found that ‘the essence of Howards utopian city is the self-contained community of the feudal village, combined with a limited development of industry and using modern communications to link urban centres to each other; Howards Garden City would employ only a small number of the population to work in the municipality, while the majority would earn their living in the conventional way by working for the manufacturers, cooperatives and philanthropic societies that Howard hoped to attract - providing both a ready made workforce and a consumer market for local industry and agriculture’. The applicability of Howard’s Garden City on modern cities has been examined regarding the case of Sunbelt City, a modern model of urban planning which applies in many areas across America. Comparing this model to Ebenezer Howards Garden City, it is stated that the latter ‘was self-contained and self-sufficient linked to a major metropolis’. Moreover it is noticed that ‘Howards Garden City, envisioned as a self-contained alternative to the expanding metropolis, is by definition separate and at some distance from the city; thus, this model does not offer guidance on how the Sunbelt city (or any other city of any size), should grow or be structured. Further, large cities exert a centripetal pull toward the center; small cities and garden cities in the shadow of or fully integrated into the metropolitan area do not provide the variety of amenities and services found in the low-density, suburban Sunbelt cities; hence, the garden city is not an appropriate model’ (Fink, 1993, 320). In other words, the model of Howard could be possibly suitable for a society based on agricultural while for modern industrial cities, this model would have to be transformed in order to be appropriate for the needs and the demands of their population. However, Howard’s model can be used indirectly when designing a series of modern urban planning projects. Towards this direction, Ward (1998, 128) noticed that ‘within Howards overall conception can be found many of the key principles of twentieth century planning practice; these include land use segregation, master planning, residential site planning, neighbourhood units, shopping malls, industrial parks, road hierarchies, regional planning, planned decentralization, and greenbelts’. On the other hand, the study of Fowler et al. (1996) proved that the model of Howard could be possibly applied in modern cities under the terms that a series of changes would be made on its structure and its principles. More specifically, the above researcher found that there are three ideas that are important in order to retain the ‘principles of the green, organic city: the positive qualities of density in walking-based centres and sub-centres linked by transit; the positive qualities of mixed land use; and the positive qualities of natural processes and localized community processes in the city’ (Fowler et al., 1996, 15). It seems that the application of Howard’s model in modern cities is feasible. Two characteristic examples of the above application are the cases of Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City – both in UK - which took shape approximately in the period between 1903 and 1920. Particularly of Letchworth it has been found that when this town was first established ‘growing electricity use and the high cost of land in London were encouraging an outward shift of factories’ (Ward, 4). In other words, the creation of the Green City of Letchworth has been responded effectively to the needs of people for a lower cost of life but also to the needs of factories for lower operational costs. Regarding the modern urban planning development, it has been noticed by Campbell (1996, 296) that ‘the current concept of sustainability, though a laudable holistic vision, is vulnerable to the same criticism of vague idealism made thirty years ago against comprehensive planning; in this case, the idealistic fascination often builds upon a romanticized view of pre-industrial, indigenous, sustainable cultures - inspiring visions, but also of limited modern applicability; nevertheless, sustainability, if redefined and incorporated into a broader understanding of political conflicts in industrial society, can become a powerful and useful organizing principle for planning’. In the above assumptions the presence of Howard’s model has not been considered as necessary rather because it has been thought as referring to traditional forms of urban planning. At the same time, the creation of the second Green City, Welwyn Garden City, was also related with the ‘decentralization of manufacturing industries’ a necessary requirement for their growth. Both these cities have been ‘adapted well to subsequent economic change’ while they have also ‘been benefited by being in a very buoyant region of Britain’ (Ward, 4). Another issue that should be mentioned is the fact that the model of Howard highlighted many important aspects of modern urban planning apart from the need for ‘green areas’. In this context, it has been found that one of the most important advantages of Howard’s model is the sustainability of the buildings. Indeed, in the two British cities where this model has been applied ‘most buildings were constructed by traditional methods, with a higher labour content than today’ (Ward, 9). One of the main factors for the successful adaptation of these cities in the needs of their era has been the strong leadership as it has been resulted by the application of Howard’s model. More specifically, it has been found that that although the application of the Howard’s model did not lead to a traditional community life as it is described by Howard, however it resulted many other benefits for the population of the cities involved. In this way, it is noticed by Ward (4) that the companies in both the above cities ‘shaped development in a more public spirited fashion than could have been expected from normal profit-oriented developers’. Generally, the model of Howard offered the necessary guidelines in order for both the above cities to be developed with the active participation of companies which were also favoured by the specific model. In other words, cooperation between the particular parts of society has been achieved because of the model of Howard and this fact could be regarded as the most significant result of the application of this model in modern cities. As for the Archigram, this is characterized mainly by a fun approach of the conditions that characterize modern cities. The ideas of Archigram have been mainly expressed through two projects: ‘Ron Herron’s 1964 cartoon drawings of a Walking City, in which a city of giant, reptilian structures literally glided across the globe on enormous legs until its inhabitants found a place where they wanted to settle; and the crane-mounted living pods that could be plugged in wherever their inhabitants wished in Peter Cook’s 1964 Plug-in City’ (Design Museum, 2007). The above projects have been also analyzed by the Mito Arts Foundation (2005) as following: the "Walking City" portrayed a giant city with insect-like legs that would move to wherever its residents wished while the "Plug-in City" represented a city assembled from detachable spatial units intended for a variety of uses, such as condominiums, offices and stores’. It is noticed however that the above projects remained in their ‘experimental form without ever once having actually been built’ (Mito Arts Foundation, 2005). The reason for the lack of applicability of the projects proposed by Archigram could be their structure, which represents an imaginary aspect of modern cities (see Appendices section). More specifically, there could be no actual use of these projects as they are structured in order to highlight the weaknesses of architecture and urban planning in modern cities, but not to provide feasible solutions towards this direction. It could be stated that the presentation of scenes that could never be applied in practice was among the targets of the Archigram’s creators. Their main target should be considered to be to critically comment the failures of urban planning in modern cities. For this reason they used projects representing imaginary conditions as they would never going to be applied in practice. Social impact of ‘The Garden City’, the ‘Walking’ and the ‘Plug in’ Cities The creation of Howard’s model ‘Garden City’ would be possibly an appropriate solution towards the problems related with the urban planning of that period of time. However, it is noticed that Howard ‘looked forward to the depopulation of London and other large cities as a welcome relief from overcrowding; he anticipated the multicentered region as a liberation from the power-hungry metropolis; he could not foresee that the centralized metropolis would mutate into a regional city at least as destructive to the human scale as the nineteenth-century giant city’ (Fishman, 1998, 127). In other words, the urban planning used in modern cities could have never been imagined by Howard or any other researcher in that period. In fact, modern cities have been developed into ‘independent societies’ presenting their own characteristics often different from other cities of the same country. The influence of capitalism in this case should be considered as extensive. Regarding the social powers that led Howard to the creation of the ‘Garden City’ it has been found that ‘Howard was a sort of laissez-faire socialist, although he would allow a certain measure of private enterprise in his community; he was influenced by Henry George, who promulgated the idea that private land ownership was a basic inequity and that the only tax should be a tax on land; in Howards scheme, the land would be owned cooperatively by the residents; their rent--and the increase in value of the land--would pay for civic improvements, health care, and workers pensions’ (Knack, 1998, 4). In this context, a relation between Howard and Marx could be possibly identified. More specifically, Paden (2003, 83) found that ‘there is an essential tension between Marxs deterministic theories of history and society and the practice of urban planning; these theories undermine that practice by calling into question, not only the power of urban planners to effect social change, but, more importantly, the legitimacy of the normative theories needed to justify those efforts and in this way Marxs theories can be used in a number of ways to understand and improve the practice of urban planning’. At a next level, the ideas of Howard have been found to be similar with those of utopian socialists (Paden, 2003). However it should be mentioned that the model of Howard has been proved applicable under real conditions (see the example of two British cities presented above) while the ideas of utopian socialists are limited mainly in the area of theory without an appropriate formulation for their application in practice. In order to understand the social impact of Howard’s model ‘Garden City’ we should primarily refer to the social and political conditions of Howard’s era. In this context, it is noticed by Lapping et al. (1998, 125) that ‘when Howard dreamed, wrote, and built at the end of the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century, the countryside was emptying into ever more concentrated, congested, and unhealthy cities; the main concern was the well-being and housing of an impoverished urban working class; Howards solution was decentralization into compact urban groupings of 30,000 people on sites of one thousand acres, each confined by an agricultural greenbelt of five thousand acres’. Under the above conditions, Howard’s contribution to the development of a well structured urban environment had been significant. For this reason it is highlighted by Lapping et al. (1998, 125) that ‘at the end of the twentieth century, as architects and planners seek to corral and redirect urban sprawl into new, human scale environments at the metropolitan edge, Howard is the oldest and wisest of the New Urbanists’. On the other hand, the social impact of Archigram has been significant. The social impact of Archigram has been examined by Kronenburg (1998, 135) who supported that ‘projects from the economically buoyant 1960s proposed mobile dwellings as an almost realistic option; during the ‘anti-architecture’ wave of the 1960s, designers melded technological gadgetry with the idea of a revolutionary way of life; groups such as Superstudio, Coop Himmelblau and Archigram, and individual architects like Hans Hollein, proposed living environments pared down to a minimal bubble or capsule, equipped to plug into a power grid’. It should be noticed here that although the projects proposed by Archigram could not be applied in real terms – because of their structure – in fact they have influenced the social aspects of urban planning perhaps more than the model of Howard – which has been used in practice in Britain. This phenomenon could be possibly explained by the fact that Archigram included ideas that cause severe turbulences in the traditional aspects of urban planning – even today. For this reason its social impact has been extensive. As already explained above the main target of the creators of Archigram has been the ‘awakening’ of society regarding the principles and the modes of planning used in modern cities, a target that has been achieved on a long term basis. Conclusion The proposals of Howard and Archigram regarding the creation of sustainable urban communities should be considered as valuable. However, there is also the issue of their applicability in modern society. As for Archigram it has already been explained that it involves in the theoretical aspect of urban planning. As for Howard’s model, the current social and political conditions seem to be inappropriate for its application. Towards this direction, Campbell (1996, 302) stated that ‘the key difference between those indigenous, sustainable communities and ours is that they had no choice but to be sustainable; bluntly stated, if they cut down too many trees or ruined the soil, they would die out; modern society has the options presented by trade, long-term storage, and synthetic replacements; if we clear-cut a field, we have subsequent options that our ancestors didnt; In this situation, we must voluntarily choose sustainable practices, since there is no immediate survival or market imperative to do so’. In other words the need for a sustainable urban planning solution could not be characterized as emergent in modern society. The main reason for this is that modern cities have been developed at such levels that there could be no interference for their ‘restructuring’ or at least such a task would require a significant amount of time and money. References Campbell, S. (1996) Green Cities, Growing Cities Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3): 296-315 Design Museum – British Council (2007) Archigram, available at http://www.designmuseum.org/design/archigram Fink, M. (1993). Toward a Sunbelt Urban Design Manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3): 320-323 Fishman, R. (1998). Howard and the Garden. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2): 127 Fowler, E., Newman, P. (1996). Greening the City: The Ecological and Human Dimensions of the City Can Be Part of Town Planning. Alternatives Journal, 22(2): 10-19 Frey, H. (1999). Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form. London: E & FN Spon Knack, R. (1998). Garden Cities: Ebenezer Had a Point. Planning, 64(6): 4-8 Kronenburg, R. (1998). Transportable Environments: Theory, Context, Design, and Technology. London: E & FN Spon Lapping, M., Richert, E. (1998). Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2): 125-128 MITO ARTS FOUNDATION (2005) Archigram - Experimental Architecture 1961-1974, available at http://www.arttowermito.or.jp/archigram/archi.html Paden, R. (2003). Marxism, Utopianism and Modern Urban Planning. Utopian Studies, 14(1): 82-100 Parker, S. (2004). Urban Theory & the Urban Experience: Encountering the City. New York: Routledge Sanders, J. (1998). Archigram: Designs on the Future. Artforum International, 37(2): 108 Shonfield, K. (2000). Walls Have Feelings: Architecture, Film, and the City. London: Routledge Ward, S. ‘The Garden City as a sustainable community’ Department of Planning, Oxford Brookes University Ward, S. (1998) The Vision beyond Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2): 128 Appendices Figure 1 – Archigram – 1964, Ron Herron, The Walking City (Source: Design Museum, 2007) Figure 2 – Archigram – 1964, Peter Cook, The Plug In City (Source: Mito Arts Foundation, 2005) Read More