I am somewhat unclear on what the shift is you are documenting here vis-a-vis city planners. In my mind, the 19th century is the period of time that cities shifted into being planned, and the mid 20th century that time where city planners were most powerful.
Yet, it is that same period that sowed our cities destruction. I don’t feel that the problem was a loss of control over planning, the triumph of the private over the public, but precisely the opposite. Cities should be planned _much less_ than they are. I would think you agree, so that is where I feel I am missing your point.
Here's what I mean. You are correct in one respect; planning today has become a meticulous exercise of land use regulation down to the lot level. Zoning regulates not only land uses, but also minimum lot size, front, side and rear yard setbacks, yard size, design standards, distance between uses deemed to be deleterious, and more. And what's more, if you want to deviate from the standards, zoning ordinances also detail the rigorous process you'll need to go through to get the change you desire.
This competition from 112 years ago is different. Submitters were told to design a 160-acre tract that could broadly be integrated into the city's overall grid framework. In early 20th century Chicago it was accepted that the 160-acre "quarter section" was the neighborhood unit that would include housing types across the economic spectrum, as well as commercial and office districts, schools, even manufacturing.
Back then there was an acceptance of the general framework, with agreed-upon deviations from it. Today's planning is a hodge-podge of disconnected residential/commercial/industrial/institutional units that make sense within them (even if you don't like what they offer) but don't relate to each other.
So I guess when I say "public realm" I mean an acceptance of a general framework like the street network, infrastructure and scale of the neighborhood unit, and building on that framework. I see this as being far removed from the restrictive regulations of today's planning, and consistent with the *less* planning you mention.
I am somewhat unclear on what the shift is you are documenting here vis-a-vis city planners. In my mind, the 19th century is the period of time that cities shifted into being planned, and the mid 20th century that time where city planners were most powerful.
Yet, it is that same period that sowed our cities destruction. I don’t feel that the problem was a loss of control over planning, the triumph of the private over the public, but precisely the opposite. Cities should be planned _much less_ than they are. I would think you agree, so that is where I feel I am missing your point.
Here's what I mean. You are correct in one respect; planning today has become a meticulous exercise of land use regulation down to the lot level. Zoning regulates not only land uses, but also minimum lot size, front, side and rear yard setbacks, yard size, design standards, distance between uses deemed to be deleterious, and more. And what's more, if you want to deviate from the standards, zoning ordinances also detail the rigorous process you'll need to go through to get the change you desire.
This competition from 112 years ago is different. Submitters were told to design a 160-acre tract that could broadly be integrated into the city's overall grid framework. In early 20th century Chicago it was accepted that the 160-acre "quarter section" was the neighborhood unit that would include housing types across the economic spectrum, as well as commercial and office districts, schools, even manufacturing.
Back then there was an acceptance of the general framework, with agreed-upon deviations from it. Today's planning is a hodge-podge of disconnected residential/commercial/industrial/institutional units that make sense within them (even if you don't like what they offer) but don't relate to each other.
So I guess when I say "public realm" I mean an acceptance of a general framework like the street network, infrastructure and scale of the neighborhood unit, and building on that framework. I see this as being far removed from the restrictive regulations of today's planning, and consistent with the *less* planning you mention.