DUE 5/21

Planning Perspectives

ISSN: 0266-5433 (Print) 1466-4518 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rppe20

‘Must our cities remain ugly?’ – America's urban crisis and the European city: transatlantic perspectives on urban development, 1945–1970

Andreas Joch

To cite this article: Andreas Joch (2014) ‘Must our cities remain ugly?’ – America's urban crisis and the European city: transatlantic perspectives on urban development, 1945–1970, Planning Perspectives, 29:2, 165-187, DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2013.873732

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2013.873732

Published online: 24 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3615

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rppe20

‘Must our cities remain ugly?’ – America’s urban crisis and the European city: transatlantic perspectives on urban development, 1945–1970

Andreas Joch∗

German Historical Institute, 1607 New Hampshire Ave NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA

(Received 14 April 2013; final version received 16 September 2013)

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.

Keywords: Leo Grebler; Thomas Schocken; transatlantic planning exchange; transatlantic perspectives; transnational planning history; European émigrés

In 1956, the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (JAIP) published an article that posed a provocative question to the institute’s members: ‘Must Our Cities Remain Ugly?’1 The article’s author, Thomas Schocken, a member of the St. Louis, Missouri, planning commission, was concerned about the lack of aesthetic coherence in American cities. Only if an aesthetic master vision guided every stage of the planning process, he argued, could cities become effi- cient and beautiful living environments. Schocken believed in the ability of experts to develop these visions for a better urban future. Their implementation, however, was more problematic – especially within the framework of a democratic society. US planners lacked the ability to control city development beyond the provision of flexible zoning guidelines and building

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: [email protected]

Planning Perspectives, 2014 Vol. 29, No. 2, 165–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2013.873732

codes. To answer the question of how architects and planners could be enabled to create coher- ent cities, Schocken turned to Europe. Departing in the fall of 1958, he spent a year travelling through several European countries in order to study the legal frameworks that regulated the relationship between planning and design.

Schocken was convinced that European planning practices could serve as a ‘valuable lesson’ on how to improve planning in the USA.2 His view was based on his past experience as a planner. Before Schocken emigrated to the USA during the Second World War, he had studied architecture in Munich and Berlin, collaborated with Neues Bauen pioneer Ernst May in the Soviet Union, spent three years in Spain assisting the municipal architect of Bilbao, and joined the British Town and Country Planning Association during a short stay in London.3 After his return from the 1958 study trip, which was funded by the John Simon Gug- genheim Memorial Foundation, he explained to colleagues and supporters how European archi- tects, especially in northern countries, were able to control the aesthetic quality of new construction: architect-planners enjoyed a high social status, much newly developed land was the property of local governments, and professional committees had to approve the design of new private construction. In Schocken’s view, the European experience showed that none of these factors were incompatible with democratic societies. They did, however, stand in stark contrast to the limited influence US planners had on questions of urban design.4

Schocken and changing American perspectives on European planning

Schocken’s approach highlights Europe’s role as a source of information that could provide US planning experts with a new perspective.5 The planning-friendly political environment present in many states and the massive reconstruction projects necessitated by wartime destruction had, by the late 1950s, turned Europe into a popular object of study. Although the USA emerged as the hegemonic Western power after the Second World War, the transatlantic urban dialogue did not turn into a unidirectional affair. Bilateral and thematically diverse exchange continued across the ‘transatlantic watershed’ marked by the year 1945. The modes, mechanisms, and scope of this exchange, however, changed considerably during the post-war decades.

When focusing on the broad development trends of the planning discipline since the late nine- teenth century, we can identify several high points of American planners’ interest in Europe: German zoning practices during the early days of modern planning, European social housing in the 1920s and 1930s, and a much broader interest in the late 1950s and 1960s emanating from growing concerns about America’s urban crisis. However, the links established by many institutions and individuals during these periods formed a permanent and expanding network that guaranteed that European and American planning discussions became interconnected to an increasing degree.

American city planning received a significant boost in status during the 1940s, both internally and externally. War and depression had spurred a strong commitment to interventionist politics by the US government, including a ‘renaissance’ of urban planning.6 After the war, the USA extended its international outreach into the urban field through educational programmes as well as technical and financial assistance provided primarily in the context of the European Productivity Agency and the US Technical Assistance Programme.7 Thus, US planners were senders rather than receivers during the initial phase of post-war transatlantic exchange on planning.

The response of European urbanists to the US’s new role was ambivalent and characterized by the same processes of adaptation, hybridization, and rejection that occurred in other cultural

166 A. Joch

and economic areas.8 The direct influence of the USA’s urban initiatives on European city plan- ning, planning education, and urban development was limited and European urbanists became increasingly critical of the development of American cities during the 1950s.9 Even earlier, US planners themselves began to criticize the general trends of domestic urban development. In the process of searching for alternatives in Europe, they acknowledged failures as well as successes and found much that seemed to be more advanced than their own practices.

This study of the actors and channels of transatlantic exchange on planning highlights three aspects that shaped the post-war interest in Europe among US urbanists: first, the initiative of individuals remained crucial for the flow of planning information from Europe to the USA, at least until the late 1950s, and much depended on the personal experiences and connections, especially those of European-born and- trained planners. Schocken’s career illustrates this point. With his language skills and his professional background, he was well prepared for the study tour he undertook in 1959. Together with other European immigrants and émigrés, as well as those who were influenced by their teaching, he helped facilitate the transatlantic transfer of planning knowledge. In the late 1940s and 1950s, these experts played a key role in the broad- ening of US planners’ international perspective. The biographies of these foreign-born planners and those of many of their US-born colleagues remind us of the complex international networks that exist in the field of planning and the continuity of exchange across the Atlantic.

Second, American-trained planners’ interest in Europe was born from the central shortcom- ings of the domestic practice of planning as they perceived them. While US downtowns suffered vis-à-vis sprawling suburbia, European cities successfully revitalized their central business dis- tricts. The housing developments that reshaped many Central and Northern European cities made the limitations and deficits of American public housing painfully obvious. With planners refocusing their attention on urban design in the 1950s, the aesthetic superiority of European cities that had occupied American observers since the early decades of the century regained pro- minence in professional debates. Beyond specific planning topics, Europe served as an argu- mentative tool for US experts who were eager to change the socio-political frame that limited the impact planners had on urban development processes in their home country.

This approach worked both ways across the Atlantic. European observers, grappling with their own professional dilemmas, were interested in very different things when they looked to the cities of the USA for inspiration. What they found was state-of-the-art traffic planning and a legal and economic environment that allowed for large-scale urban redevelopment. This article does not, however, attempt to compare both perspectives. A growing body of litera- ture deals with the influence and perception of American planning in a global context.10 This analysis is limited to the way city planners working inside the USA approached the work of their European colleagues during the post-war decades that were shaped by reconstruction and urban renewal. It focuses on the ‘golden age’ of planning that lasted into the 1960s.11

Third, planners used a diverse set of channels (study tours, conferences, literature, etc.) to exchange professional information. Although US planners’ interest in Europe became more inclusive over time, it remained biased towards specific regions and topics. Traditionally close ties with Great Britain continued to shape the transatlantic dialogue after 1945. In addition, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and The Netherlands quickly (re-)emerged as geographi- cal foci of the American debate. Planning progress in Southern Europe, on the other hand, was largely neglected and Eastern European countries, excluding the Soviet Union, were only

Planning Perspectives 167

sporadically discussed, but began to receive increasing attention towards the second half of the 1960s.

In spite of their interest in foreign examples, urbanists on both sides of the Atlantic realized that, in many respects, a ‘transatlantic divide’ existed in planning. Those who had relocated from Europe to the USA paid special attention to existing and perceived differences. In an article published in 1946, German émigré Martin Wagner contrasted the ability of well-trained civil servants to control the development of cities in Germany with the situation in the USA. American cities, Wagner explained, were caught up in party politics and lacked the tools to carry out long-term development plans.12 Schocken’s belief in the creative power of the master architect also points in the direction of transatlantic differences regarding the social framework of urban planning.13 American planners were forced to be more responsive to the general and political public. Moreover, municipal traditions that placed common over individual interests were less strongly developed in the USA than in many European countries.14 Beyond professional and academic debates, the actual development of cities, too, differed significantly in transatlantic comparison.15

It is difficult to identify the reach and impact of transatlantic exchange processes within the US professional community. In terms of numbers, the travelling study groups could be quite large, but for many planners a visit to Europe was an isolated experience. Even more complex is the question of the extent to which information about or experiences with European urban environments influenced projects in the USA. This can only be discussed on the basis of individual case studies and will not be the focus of this article. The discussion below focuses on the framework and modes of transatlantic exchange. Necessarily, it will remain vague with regard to change in specific urban spaces. Few US urbanists, however, were thinking about direct transfers. Instead, they were interested in the legal context of planning, the scope of plan- ning programmes, and the aesthetic considerations.

A unique set of socio-economic and political trends created the characteristic (sub)urban landscapes of the post-war USA. In many respects these landscapes differed from their European counterparts. The increasing involvement of the federal government with urban development and planning was focused on infrastructural projects and economic growth. Housing (except that for the very poor) and inner cities remained low-priority issues. In addition, middle-class consumers created a strong demand for urban environments that corresponded to the lifestyle ideals they were aspiring to. Private developers and not planners satisfied this demand.16

Still, a growing number of US urbanists negotiated the way in which they brought their limited influence to bear on American urban environments in a transnational context. Thus, transatlantic informational flows must be acknowledged as one of the many vectors – inter- national, national, regional, and local – that determined the shape of US cities.

The transatlantic urban dialogue in historical perspective

This article seeks to expand the perspective many historians and professionals who focus on the American practice and its global outreach have developed on the relationship between architec- tural and planning developments on both sides of the Atlantic. US planning professionals were forced to deal with the question of European influences as early as the late nineteenth century. They acknowledged the status of German and British planners as influential pioneers whose work had shaped developments in the USA.17 In the process of professionalization, however,

168 A. Joch

they began to stress the need to develop autonomous solutions for unique urban problems.18 US planning history has perpetuated this emphasis on the independence of American planning.19

Similar processes shaped the discussion about the evolution of modern architecture. Arguing against the Eurocentric perspective that characterized most early accounts, architectural histor- ians have shown convincingly that the ‘encounter’ with the New World was central to the devel- opment of European modernism.20 After their introduction to the USA, European concepts were heavily adapted to and influenced by the new environment.21

These studies have expanded our knowledge of the global interdependence of urban devel- opment processes. Their focus on the USA’s outreach, however, obstructs the view of the yet understudied transnational frame in which US cities developed.22 This frame encompassed the development of cities worldwide and the discipline of city planning was embedded firmly within it.23 From its beginnings in the late nineteenth century, knowledge about concepts, ideas, and planning projects has circulated freely among a large group of nations.24 The intensity and direction of the information flows varied over the course of the twentieth century, but dis- cussions about urban matters consistently showed a strong tendency to utilize international examples.25 Scholars have refocused their attention on the different modes of transmission of planning ideas and the varied strategies of international learning.26 In this context, American planners, too, must be understood as ‘importers of ideas’.27 Over the course of the twentieth century, American architects, city planners, and urban designers participated in and profited from international exchange.28 Their specialized look across the Atlantic contributed to the transnational forces that shaped US urban history. Urban planners in the post-war USA con- ducted much of their work in the context of an ‘urban renewal order’ that took a similar form on both sides of the Atlantic: the reform of cities was high on the agenda of political decision-makers and city planners had established themselves as experts on urban develop- ment.29 Furthermore, the ideas and concepts guiding planners’ work, such as the ubiquitous neighbourhood idea, had developed in a transatlantic framework.30

American planning in the post-war world: a new leader?

Although the political and economic changes that occurred after 1945 positively affected the USA’s position in the transatlantic planning network, global urban development never became dependent on American examples. City planners from the larger European states who had relied, to varying degrees, on American assistance during the early post-war years quickly re-established a level playing field in discussions with their American colleagues. This shift was facilitated by the stable transatlantic alliance between the USA and most Western European countries. It also reflected the sheer volume of planned urban development in Europe and the impressive achievements associated with reconstruction and the fight against the post-war housing shortage.

In line with the USA’s politically hegemonic position and its function as an economic and cultural role model, American planners appeared on the international stage with confidence in the late 1940s. The fundamental realignment of international relations that occurred in the after- math of the Second World War had altered the parameters of the international dialogue on urban development and put the USA in a favourable position. US economic and technical assistance was vital for Europe’s recovery, not least in connection with urban reconstruction. The US gov- ernment provided financial aid for building projects, sent official advisors to destroyed cities,

Planning Perspectives 169

and invited European experts on study trips to the USA. Beyond the assistance programmes of the early post-war years, US cities attracted the attention of European observers. In response to rising prosperity levels in the 1950s, European planners paid special attention to the extensive traffic planning projects underway in most American cities.31

The USA’s new role was reflected in the strong asymmetries American planners perceived in international exchange processes. In 1947, a reporter for The Washington Post stated that as ‘new cities arise out of the ashes and rubble of war-battered Europe, much of the credit will go to an organization working on the campus of the University of Chicago, the American Society of Planning Officials’ (ASPO).32 The article was the result of an interview with the society’s executive director Walter Blucher. The author described the ASPO’s extensive consultation work for European planners who were relying on the US organization for advice on the problems associated with large-scale urban reconstruction. The members of the ASPO were portrayed as tutors whose professional development had not suffered during the war. They were able to instruct their European colleagues on methods for planning, structuring, and (re)buiding a modern city.

American commentators also described their country as an international model for the phys- ical form and aesthetic appearance of urban environments. In a 1957 article on ‘The Urban Aes- thetic’, John Burchard, dean of the School of Humanities and Social Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a prolific writer on architectural and planning questions, described a global levelling process.33 Burchard was primarily concerned with the design side of city plan- ning and its relevance for the improvement of city life. Prosperity and widespread car owner- ship, Burchard explained, had initiated a process of urban adaptation that affected nation states throughout the developed world. Unique and regionally distinct aspects of urban life were substituted for modern standardization. Burchard was highly critical of this process and described the destructive effects that the proliferation of the urban symbols of modernity had on existing cityscapes in detail. Nevertheless, in his view it was the USA that was leading the way. The ‘aesthetic Armageddon’ that US cities had experienced when urbanity entered a losing battle with the new highway culture and the suburban strip was now spreading around the globe.34 The final result was a uniform ‘Hilton-Mecca’, with omnipresent drive-ins, parking lots, and hotdog stands.35 (Figure 1)

The contact with foreign planning traditions and the flawed development of American cities prompted American planners to reassess the USA’s position. Since the early 1950s, a reversed look across the Atlantic became more and more appealing to them. Internationally, the efforts to influence urban development through ‘dollar diplomacy’ produced mixed and seldom predict- able results.36 Due to Western Europe’s quick recovery, the focus of US urban programmes shifted to less developed regions in the 1960s. Still, globally available expertise and develop- ment concepts continued to clash with, be integrated into, and be transformed by local efforts to shape urban living spaces. American planning and models for urban development were, thus, confronted with a multitude of alternatives. In addition, US urbanists became increasingly concerned about the severe shortcomings visible in the towns and cities of their home country.37

By the early 1960s, US planners were fully aware that their European colleagues had more to offer than an open ear for American ideas and advice. European cities were celebrating the initial success of their new town programmes and the revitalization of central business districts.38 In 1964, Leo Grebler, professor of real estate and urban land economics at the University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles, published a survey of urban renewal in Europe. His description of the

170 A. Joch

relationship between planning experts on both sides of the Atlantic illustrates how the role assignments in international planning had changed:

For many decades the United States looked to advanced European countries for models and guidance in the development of housing policies and the improvement of city planning. In the case of urban renewal, the shoe is on the other foot. . . . [T]he evolution of an articulate program for the renewal of its cities and towns since 1949 has placed the United States in a position of leader- ship. . . . The stream of influence has been reversed. Instead of United States experts traveling to Europe for inspiration and instruction on housing policies, Europeans now come to our shores to look into urban renewal.39

This ‘position of leadership’ was, however, limited to one specific area. The USA had been the first country to implement a national urban renewal programme that offered funding and stan- dardized guidelines for the redevelopment of residential as well as commercial urban areas across the country.40 Beyond the adoption of a national programme, Grebler added, ‘the Amer- ican lead is much less clear’.41 He explained how European planners, in contrast with their American peers, emphasized conservation, public transport, and central city development in the context of urban renewal projects and urged his readers to pay close attention to these

Figure 1. ‘Parking Lot in New Jersey’. Photograph by Peter Blake. Published in Peter Blake, God’s Own Junkyard, New York 1964. This photograph illustrates what many contemporary architects had in mind when they used phrases like ‘aesthetic Armageddon’.

Planning Perspectives 171

issues. Grebler used the transatlantic perspective to offer a subtle critique of the US urban renewal system and to make suggestions for its improvement. The system itself had, indeed, had a significant international impact. By the time Grebler published his survey, however, urban renewal, especially in its most radical forms, had already become a highly controversial issue and was facing fierce criticism from planners, social scientists, and citizen movements on both sides of the Atlantic precisely because of its top-down nature.42

Obtaining information on European planning: mechanisms of transatlantic exchange

The information on European planning that reached the professional public in the USA was biased towards a limited set of topics and countries. Nevertheless, during the 1950s, US planners re-integrated themselves into a transnational community that had its roots in the late nineteenth century. Planning knowledge was transmitted via several bilateral channels and published reports allowed a large number of US urbanists to familiarize themselves, albeit often in a super- ficial way, with most of the major trends in European planning. Their more internationally active colleagues had the opportunity to study European planning during tours and conferences. This section focuses on the significance and development of the tools available for the transmission of planning knowledge and pays particular attention to the role played by immigrants and émigrés from Europe.

On the USA side, professionals with a European background often facilitated the flow of information through the transatlantic channels. They were active in towns and cities across the USA and their work touched on most facets of the planning discipline. Spanish planner and delegate to the Congrès internationaux d’architecture moderne (CIAM), Josep Lluı́s Sert, established a private consulting firm in New York in the late 1930s and later taught at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, introducing a pioneering urban design programme. At other institutions, émigrés were equally important in shaping the academic education of American planners. Hugo Leipziger-Pearce’s efforts were essential for the creation of the urban and regional planning degree at the University of Texas at Austin. He also devel- oped master plans for numerous towns across Texas. Hans Blumenfeld, another German émigré, worked for several years with the city planning commission in Philadelphia before he moved to Canada in 1955.43 The projects of French planner Maurice Rotival in New Haven, Connecticut, influenced the character of later urban renewal projects.44 As international experts, these plan- ners were able to connect with the professional environment in the USA. Their concepts and ideas, however, changed within the new socio-political framework.

The career of Leo Grebler, the author of the 1964 survey on urban renewal in Europe, illus- trates how European-trained planners often functioned as nodes in a transatlantic network. Grebler, who had worked for the Federal Home Loan Bank and the National Housing Admin- istration before he started his academic career, travelled to Europe for extended study trips in 1953 and 1961. During both trips he focused on reconstruction and urban renewal. Then, back in the USA, he published extensively on the subject.45 Although Grebler described himself as an outside observer in Europe and, according to an autobiographical text published in 1976, began to identify as ‘American’ in the early 1940s, he had strong European roots.46

Grebler, born in 1900, was a German Jew. He received a PhD in Economics from the University of Giessen in 1926 and worked as an economic journalist in Frankfurt am Main. Grebler fled from his home country to Geneva in 1935. In 1937, he left Europe and emigrated to the

172 A. Joch

United States. During his American career, Grebler frequently utilized his familiarity with Euro- pean developments for his professional endeavours.47

Academic institutions and professional associations, often with the help of people of back- grounds similar to Grebler’s, organized transatlantic tours for groups of planning experts as early as the late 1940s. Case Western Reserve University advertised an urban study tour headed for Europe in the magazine The American City in March 1949. The organizers specifically invited ‘municipal officials and those concerned with planning and housing affairs in the US’ to partici- pate.48 The tour’s guide, Swiss-born Hermann Haviland Field, serves as another example of the biographical entanglements that shaped transatlantic contacts in the planning field. Field moved to the USA at a young age and studied architecture at Harvard University. After graduation in 1934, he continued his education in Europe. He studied for two years in Zurich and Moscow, worked with Paul Bonatz in Stuttgart, and travelled extensively in France, Italy, Belgium, and England. Field also established connections with several members of the CIAM group, including Sert and Walter Gropius. In the second half of the 1950s, European tours gained popu- larity and their itineraries began to reflect the regional bias mentioned earlier. The trips usually involved visits to multiple countries, with Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, and France featuring as the most popular destinations. The participants were able to study planning, housing, and urban environments in the context of guided local tours. Lectures and informal meetings provided the opportunity to engage in professional exchange with foreign planners. Regarding the regions described above, the tours offered a broad geo- graphical perspective and the chance to obtain information on a variety of planning topics, ranging from rural infrastructure improvements in Scotland and regional planning efforts in The Netherlands to new towns in England and Sweden.49 With time, the organization of study tours to Europe became more institutionalized and the composition of the study groups grew more diverse. In 1967, the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a research organization based in Washington, DC, sponsored a month-long tour of 15 major European cities. Among the 41 par- ticipants, city planners and architects were in the minority. They were outnumbered by realty experts, commercial builders, executives of financial institutions, and land developers.50

Individual researchers and planning experts who visited Europe usually stayed longer than the participants of the organized group tours and focused their attention on particular topics. In many cases, their trips were supported by large American research foundations. Together with professional associations, institutions of higher education, and urban lobby groups the foundations formed a broad institutional framework for studies of the European urban environ- ment.51 Government institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, too, were interested in facilitating transatlantic exchange on urban problems and made funds available for research trips.52

During the 1960s, international planning congresses and workshops became important forums for transatlantic exchange.53 Until the late 1950s, however, US delegations at these meetings were small compared to those of European nations. The circumstances of Samuel Spielvogel’s visit to the 1952 congress in Lisbon, organized by the International Federation for Housing and Town Planning (IFHTP), reveal the irrelevance of these meetings for the pro- fessional lives of American planners. Spielvogel, at the time with the New Haven Redevelop- ment Authority, reported that only five other participants from the USA attended the congress. Spielvogel himself used the conference to connect with his émigré past. He had studied in Vienna in the late 1930s but was forced to flee in 1938. He continued his studies in Ireland and the USA. Personal visits to Austria and Israel framed his trip to Lisbon.

Planning Perspectives 173

Nevertheless, Spielvogel highlighted the congress’s potential for exchange. He participated in local tours and was impressed with the exhibition that was shown parallel to the panel sessions: ‘[t]his medium is an excellent visual device whereby achievements in many countries can readily be seen and solutions compared . . . material which, when shared, will foster the devel- opment of new concepts’.54

Towards the end of the decade, American planners became more interested in international meetings. The seminar on urban renewal that was co-organized by the IFHTP and held in August 1958 in The Hague, can be characterized as a turning point in this regard. US planners from diverse professional backgrounds participated and the results were distributed widely among the American professional public.55 The conference and its implications for transatlantic exchange on planning are discussed in detail by Phillip Wagner in this volume.

In the USA, numerous articles in professional journals supplied those who were unable to make the transatlantic journey with information on European planning progress. Those who reported on the less well-known regions of Europe, however, expressed their concern about the tunnel vision that characterized their colleagues’ international perspective. Grebler wrote in 1964 that ‘Great Britain’s new town policy has received such widespread attention in this country that the planning and building of new towns, satellite towns, and huge suburban exten- sions in other European nations has been obscured’.56 Great Britain’s special status in the trans- atlantic planning dialogue is further underlined by the fact that British urbanists represented the majority of foreign contributors to American journals.

In comparison with England and Scotland, most European regions were discussed cursorily in American journals. Reports about Eastern and Southern European countries in particular were short and infrequent. The Scandinavian countries and the major planning traditions of Western Europe, however, stayed on the radar of American planners. With regard to Swedish planners, Schocken could even argue that so much material on their projects had been published in the USA that there was no need for him to provide additional details on their work in his trip report.57 Foreign and American experts published on Swedish new towns, German reconstruc- tion efforts, and Dutch housing developments in US journals.58 Many of the foreign contributors had crossed the Atlantic several times during their careers – before and after the Second World War. With their reports they continued a long-standing tradition of exchange across the Atlantic.59

European planning in the USA: more than an argument?

In the post-war decades, European planning became a powerful argumentative tool in the US debate about the development and competencies of planning profession. Those who felt that the work of American planners was undermined by a socio-political framework, which focused on individual interests, used references to European practices in their campaigns for change in the way urban America was developed. Generous public support for housing devel- opments in Sweden and the independent decision-making of local planning departments in Germany provided ammunition for US planners eager to expand their disciplines’ field of exper- tise and ability to shape urban environments.

US experts on European planning acknowledged that political, economic, cultural, and legal differences complicated direct transfers of planning programmes and that American planning needed to find independent solutions to the intensifying flight to suburbia and the related

174 A. Joch

challenges to central cities. As a result, few suggestions were as concrete as the proposal by federal planning official John R. Searles to recreate Copenhagen’s Tivoli in Washington, DC, in an attempt to revitalize urban life in the capital’s southwest district.60 However, the proposal represented only one end of a wide spectrum of opinions on the possibilities of transatlantic exchange.

Schocken’s report on his European trip contained one of the most advanced proposals for the institutionalization of transnational cooperation among city planners, designers, and housing experts:

[T]he world needs exchange of technical knowledge and planning experience . . . Perhaps the idea can be made more acceptable all around, if it is realized that no country is meant to be exclusively at the receiving end, and thereby to be stamped as backward or underdeveloped. Each country has something to teach. We in the U.S. seem to be unable to learn from Rotterdam’s Lijnbaan . . . much as we talk about shoppers’ malls. The Europeans admire our expressways but do a poor job of forecasting traffic volumes. Against all odds I am suggesting therefore the foundation of an international, technical consultation service for planning . . . [N]ational sensibilities have to be overcome by emphasizing the angle of mutual aid. E.g. while Swedish housing experts help us in planning our kitchens, an American helps the Dutch with their traffic planning and a Dutch planner the Swedes with regional planning.61

Schocken was enthusiastic about the benefits of transnational cooperation and learning. Never- theless, as a planner who had worked in four different countries, he was well aware of the obstacles that stood in the way of international transfers. Beyond the legal and administrative differences that hindered the implementation of foreign policies, he addressed national sensibil- ities and the asymmetries in the international community. Other observers stressed that econ- omic dynamism and individual mobility had created a unique kind of urban environment in the USA that was incompatible with European models. A general conviction that anti-urban opinions were more strongly developed among Americans frequently accompanied these concerns.

None of these aspects stopped US urbanists from studying European cities with the intention of improving urban life in the USA. In popular thematic areas, such as the development of new towns and the revitalization of central business districts, Europe was most likely to serve as a possible source of direct imports. Max Wehrly, the executive director of the ULI, explained in his foreword to Grebler’s 1956 study of European reconstruction why the institute supported the publication:

[P]erhaps the most important reason for our interest in giving Dr. Grebler’s study wide distribution is the clear testimony to the endurance of the city, and particularly the city centre. In it is a message to those in the United States who question the continued existence of ‘downtown’, as well as encouragement to the believer in the continued strength and soundness of the central city.62

Two years earlier, the editor of the ULI’s journal, Urban Land, had characterized Rotterdam’s rebuilt, pedestrianized inner-city shopping area, the Lijnbaan, as a ‘project from across the Atlantic which . . . offers at once a practical example and a challenge to the Western Hemisphere in the rehabilitation and redevelopment of our own downtown areas’.63 This editor’s note pre- ceded an article that presented shopping areas like the Lijnbaan as a possible solution for the problems that American downtowns faced as a consequence of rapid suburban expansion (Figure 2). To support his argument, the author quoted a comment prominent American architect

Planning Perspectives 175

Figure 2. The Lijnbaan in Rotterdam. Photograph by J. Rotgans, Collection NAI, part of The New Insti- tute, Archive (code): BROX, inv.nr : f 907. Original at NFM, collection Rotgans.

176 A. Joch

Victor Gruen made after seeing pictures and descriptions of the Dutch shopping centre: ‘Crowded American downtown districts might take a lesson from Lijnbaan’s setup’.64

Beyond Rotterdam, European cities were a major source of inspiration for Gruen, who had worked as an architect in Austria until he became a victim of Nazi persecution and was forced to leave the country in 1938. His office, particularly well known for suburban shopping malls, was among the most successful architectural firms in the USA.65 Throughout his career, Gruen stressed the superior urban qualities of his hometown, Vienna, in comparison with most US cities. Starting in the late 1940s, he spent several months in Europe almost every year. With his suburban and downtown mall projects, Gruen tried but ultimately failed to infuse America’s cities with the density and diversity he had experienced in Europe’s metropolises (see below Figure 3). At the same time, he invested considerable resources in an attempt to save European cities from the negative developments that had turned American urban centres into crisis regions. Like Burchard, Gruen was convinced that the convergence of urban forms in the

Figure 3. Fulton Street, Fresno, CA. Photograph by The Tidyman Studios; Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Visual Materials from the Victor Gruen Papers, Reproduction number: LC-DIG- ppmsca-19,531. One of Gruen’s attempts to revive the central business district of an American city: the pedestrian mall on Fulton Street in Fresno, California. Pedestrian malls enjoyed some popularity in the USA during the late 1950s and 1960s. In the long run, however, they were much less successful than their European counterparts.

Planning Perspectives 177

Western World was only a matter of time. In Europe, the architect was often criticized for his one-size-fits-all solution to urban problems. Critics, especially from outside the professions of architecture and planning, stressed the diversity of urban cultures – each with unique character- istics and problems – that defined Europe’s built environment.66

While transatlantic differences in urban development trends limited the viability of direct transfers of planning approaches, planners were able to discuss their discipline’s societal role and the political framework of planning much more freely in a transatlantic context.67 Astrid and Donald Monson’s article Report on Sweden is a noteworthy example due to its publication only four years after the end of the Second World War. The authors, who stated that they had come to Europe disillusioned by their work in the USA, depicted the Swedish planning system as considerably more advanced than its US counterpart. The Monsons, both raised and educated in the USA, met at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, where Donald Monson was a student of German émigré planner Ludwig Hilberseimer.68 After graduation, they joined the staff of the Detroit City Plan Commission. The work with the commission quickly proved to be a frustrating experience. In a letter to his former teacher, Monson complained about the mere advisory function planners had in Detroit:

The result has been the reduction of every proposal to the weakest possible suggestion and the warping of all planning to zoning ideas.69

To make matters worse, the work of American planners was frequently disrupted by private interests, ‘minor administrative controls, and politics’.70 In contrast with the situation in the USA, Swedish planners, according to the Monson’s article, were able to satisfy the functional demands of modern urban life. At the same time, they managed to develop their cities into col- lective works of art, exercising their powers of architectural control. In short, they were able to do their job.

An even stronger sense of frustration with existing urban development controls in the USA is evidenced by the reports Ada Louise Huxtable, architectural critic for the New York Times, wrote during a European tour in 1965. She argued that

Western Europe has had a ten-to-twenty years’ start on almost every urban problem that is currently being wrestled with in the United States, and has produced an enlightening array of applicable successes and fiascos. To ignore the lessons Europe has learned, and as a result to make the same mistakes all over again, is too slow, costly and foolish a process for anything so critical as the state of American cities and the urgency of American housing needs. But that is exactly what we are doing.71

For observers like Huxtable, Europe’s old cities, and the way planners adapted them to the demands of post-war societies through the introduction and improvement of mass transit systems, central shopping areas, and planned satellite communities, offered an alternative sol- ution to the problems that plagued US cities. Suburban sprawl and the socio-economic decay of the urban core associated with it were seen as the most severe symptoms of a larger urban crisis. In this context, Huxtable was not interested in accurately measuring the relative pro- fessional capabilities of American and European planners. As a proponent of comprehensive government intervention in the urban sector, she pointed to Europe, where this approach had been successful. Urbanists from both sides of the ocean had utilized the transatlantic perspective

178 A. Joch

to support their own arguments since the interwar period. Like the Monsons, Huxtable was pro- posing a fundamental change in the way urban development was controlled in the USA, and foreign examples served as a powerful argument in her campaign.

The function of European cities and European planning as an argumentative tool was most apparent in the discussion about the aesthetic shortcomings of urban America and its lack of density and centrality. Without much empirical backing, European cities were presented as a backdrop against which the monotonous appearance and mono-functional character of Ameri- can suburbia stood out. In an article on ‘The Urban Aesthetic’, Burchard used a historical description of sixteenth-century Venice that depicted the Italian trading hub as a compact city made up of several separate but conjoined cities to create such a comparison. The author came to a strong conclusion. He suggested that Europe’s cities were much better equipped to maintain beauty and urbanity in the face of modernization: ‘This is the way sanity lies. The greatest lesson some European cities today could teach American city planners . . . is that every pleasure does not lie at the other end of a ride in an automobile’.72

In similar fashion, Catherine Bauer, a prominent housing reformer, used the ‘puzzled if not repelled’ reaction European visitors had towards American metropolitan regions to discuss the lack of traditional urbanity in US cities.73 She described how foreign observers were struck by the fact that rich America was not trying to improve its urban areas, but dedicating all available resources to the attempt to get away from them. Although Bauer was a strong supporter of inter- national transfers of planning practices that had proven successful, she rejected the notion that US cities should model themselves after their European counterparts. She was, however, con- vinced that the trends that had puzzled her European contacts were harmful to urban life and needed to be addressed by American architects, city officials, and planners. Because of the differences between the urban cultures in Europe and the USA, they needed to find their own way to integrate urbanity, the car, and suburbia.

Conclusion

With his trip to Europe, Schocken participated in a larger process. In the decades following the Second World War, many US architects, city planners, and housing specialists were willing to learn from European experiences. Transatlantic connections helped them to wrestle with the forces that rising living standards, exploding car-ownership rates, ethnic tensions, federal urban policies, and large-scale commercial builders had unleashed on urban environments throughout the nation. In a similar fashion, but with different interests, European planners closely followed the work of their US counterparts. Cities on both sides of the Atlantic, thus, continued to develop under the guidance of experts in persistent dialogue. This process was about thought-provoking discussion and comparison, much more than it was about the import of specific project ideas.

The US urbanists’ role in the international urban dialogue and their perspectives on Europe changed considerably over the course of the post-war decades. After 1945, American planners rejoined the international discussion with confidence in their own abilities. Vis-à-vis their col- leagues in the war-torn nations of Europe, they presented themselves as tutors and supporters. Urbanists worldwide regarded US cities as a form of expression of the most advanced Western society and discussed their development intensively. Due to urban America’s apparent flaws, US planners’ international perspective quickly broadened. Foreign examples turned into a tool for

Planning Perspectives 179

brainstorming and information about foreign planning legislation and planning projects was cir- culated widely among professionals.

The look across the Atlantic remained regionally and thematically biased and legal, political, and emotional obstacles reduced the effectiveness of transnational exchange and cooperation. However, US experts admired the ability of European planners to shape comprehensive devel- opments. The largely theoretical discussion about the possibilities of introducing new towns in the USA was interspersed with references to Swedish, Finnish, and British examples. Attempts at the revitalization of downtown areas showed similar characteristics. European-influenced planning, however, did little to change the new kind of suburban environment, which the broader socio-economic and political forces that shaped the post-war era had created in the USA.

Nevertheless, European planning became a powerful point of comparison in the discussion about the role of planning in American society. Some of the European émigrés saw the complex interaction between city planners, local politicians, business interests, and the public that charac- terized urban development in the USA as one of the biggest impediments to a successful pro- fessional transition. American-born urbanists, too, felt limited in their planning options. As technical experts and members of a young profession, they were eager to increase their say in decisions about urban forms. Their position in the urban development process was constantly renegotiated over the course of the post-war decades. In the process, the commitment of many European cities to public planning and the control that planners, architects, and adminis- trators exercised over urban development were contrasted with the daily seesaw of local decision making in the USA. Urban development in Europe, thus, helped US observers to organize their thoughts about the future of American cities and to formulate arguments about the political and legal framework in which they operated.

European immigrants and émigrés like Schocken shaped these transatlantic connections. Based on their past professional experience, they introduced new ways of thinking about plan- ning to the American scene. They were convinced that foreign examples were relevant for urban development in the USA. In many cases, their knowledge of the European scene induced an active approach towards international exchange after 1945. Their language skills and pro- fessional contacts gave them unique advantages for their role as transatlantic mediators.

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-speak- ing 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.

180 A. Joch

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 influ-

ence 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 dwell- ers. Lynch, Image of the City; Cf. also Albers, “Amerikanische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Stadtpla- nung,” 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 Beh- rendt’s Modern Building, published in the late 1930s. Behrendt, Modern Building. For further discus- sion, 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.

Planning Perspectives 181

31. Lundin, “Mediators of Modernity.” A contemporary example is the Buchanan report on traffic plan- ning 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 1951 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 experi-

enced 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 mem- orandum 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 Connecti- cut’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 con- tributed to the diffusion of planning knowledge. Collins, Werner Hegemann, ch. 2; Chabard, “Com- peting Scales.”

182 A. Joch

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 deliv-

ered 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.

Bibliography Adamson, Paul. “Looking Back on Our Future: Conflicting Visions and Realities of the Modern American

City.” In The Modern City Revisited, edited by Thomas Deckker, 214–244. London: Spon, 2000. Albers, Gerd. “Amerikanische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Stadtplanung” [American influences on German

city planning]. In “Going West?” Stadtplanung in den USA – gestern und heute, edited by Ursula von Petz, 11–21. Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung 116. Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung, 2004.

Albers, Gerd. Zur Entwicklung der Stadtplanung in Europa: Begegnungen, Einflüsse, Verflechtungen [On the development of city planning in Europe: Encounters, influences, interdependencies]. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1997.

Anderson, Martin. The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949–1962. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964.

Planning Perspectives 183

Bauer, Catherine. “Do Americans Hate Cities?” Journal of the American Planning Association 23, no. 1 (1957): 2–8.

Behrendt, Walter Curt. Modern Building: Its Nature, Problems, and Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1937.

Blake, Peter. God’s Own Junkyard: The Planned Deterioration of America’s Landscape. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Blumenfeld, Hans. Life Begins at 65: The Not Entirely Candid Autobiography of a Drifter. Montreal: Harvest House, 1987.

Boel, Bent. The European Productivity Agency and Transatlantic Relations, 1953–1961. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press/University of Copenhagen, 2003.

Bruère, Henry. “Goals for the Modern City: Broad Plans to Make Full Use of Wasted and Neglected Human and Material Resources Proposed for Urban Areas.” National Municipal Review 40, no. 11 (1951): 566–573.

Burchard, John E. “The Meaning of Architecture.” The Review of Politics 20, no. 3 (1958): 358–372. Burchard, John E. “The Urban Aesthetic.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 314, no. 1 (1957): 112–122. Castillo, Greg. “Design Pedagogy Enters the Cold War: The Reeducation of Eleven West German

Architects.” Journal of Architectural Education 57, no. 4 (2004): 10–18. Chabard, Pierre. “Competing Scales in Transnational Networks: The Impossible Travel of Patrick

Geddes’ Cities Exhibition to America, 1911–1913.” Urban History 36, Special Issue 02 (2009): 202–222.

Collins, Christiane Crasemann. Werner Hegemann and the Search for Universal Urbanism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Creese, Walter L. “An Impression of European Planning.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 26, no. 4 (1955): 298–308.

Crowther, Geoffrey, William Holford, O. A. Kerensky, Herbert Pollard, Dan T. Smith, Henry W. Wells, and R. N. Heaton. Traffic in Towns: A Study of the Long Term Problems of Traffic in Urban Areas. London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1963.

De Grazia, Victoria. Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance Through Twentieth-Century Europe. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005.

Diefendorf, Jeffry M. “American Influences on Urban Developments in West Germany.” In The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945–1990: A Handbook, edited by Detlef Junker, 1: 1945–1968:587–593. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Domhardt, Konstanze S. The Heart of the City: Die Stadt in den transatlantischen Debatten der CIAM, 1933–1951 [The City in CIAM’s Transatlantic Debates]. Zürich: gta Verlag, 2012.

Fishman, Robert. “The American Planning Tradition: An Introduction and Interpretation.” In The American Planning Tradition: Culture and Policy, edited by Robert Fishman, 1–29. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

Gelfand, Mark I. A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America, 1933–1965. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Gordon, Mitchell. Sick Cities. New York: Macmillan, 1963. Grebler, Leo. The Cost of the World War to Germany and to Austria-Hungary. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1940. Grebler, Leo. Europe’s Reborn Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 1956. Grebler, Leo. German-Jewish Immigrants to the United States During the Hitler Period: Personal

Reminiscences and General Observations. Los Angeles: Grebler, 1976. Grebler, Leo. Urban Renewal in European Countries: Its Emergence and Potentials. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964. Greene, E. Thomas. “The Planning Environment of Postwar West German City Reconstruction.”

Planning and Civic Comment 28, no. 2 (1962): 10–15. Gruen, Victor. “Die europäische Großstadt – Licht und Irrlicht.” In Europa Gespräch 1963. Die euro-

päische Großstadt. Licht und Irrlicht, edited by Amt für Kultur, Volksbildung und Schulverwaltung der Stadt Wien, 22–53. Wien: Verlag für Jugend und Volk, 1963.

184 A. Joch

Gruen, Victor. The Heart of Our Cities: The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964.

Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2002.

Hanchett, Thomas W. “Roots of the ‘Rennaissance’.” In Planning the Twentieth-Century American City, edited by Mary Corbin Sies and Christopher Silver, 283–304. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Hardwick, M. Jeffrey. Mall Maker: Victor Gruen, Architect of an American Dream. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Hebebrand, Werner. “Die Erneuerung in Europäischer Sicht [Renewal in European Perspective].” In Die Erneuerung unserer Städte, Märkte und Dörfer, 228–236. Wien: Forschungsgesellschaft für Wohnungsbau, 1966.

Hein, Carola. “Maurice Rotival: French Planning on a World-Scale (Part I).” Planning Perspectives 17, no. 3 (2002): 247–265.

Hein, Carola. “Maurice Rotival: French Planning on a World-Scale (Part II).” Planning Perspectives 17, no. 4 (2002): 325–344.

Huxtable, Ada Louise. “America: Land of the Disposable Environment.” New York Times, December 6, 1965.

Jackson, Kenneth T. “Transnational Borderlands: Metropolitan Growth in the United States, Germany, and Japan since World War II.” GHI Bulletin, no. 38 (2006): 11–32.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Kentgens-Craig, Margret. The Bauhaus and America: First Contacts, 1919–1936. Cambridge: MIT

Press, 1999. Kiek, Robert. “Europe’s Fifth Avenue: Lijnbaan-Rotterdam Testifies to Success of the Downtown

Shopping Center.” Urban Land 13, no. 9 (1954): 3–6. Klemek, Christopher. The Transatlantic Collapse of Urban Renewal: Postwar Urbanism from New York

to Berlin. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011. Kuchenbuch, David. Geordnete Gemeinschaft: Architekten als Sozialingenieure – Deutschland und

Schweden im 20. Jahrhundert [Ordered community: architects as social engineers – Germany and Sweden in the twentieth century]. Bielefeld: transcript, 2010.

Kwak, Nancy Haekyung. “Research in Urban History: Recent Theses on International and Comparative Urban History.” Urban History 35, no. 2 (2008): 316–324.

Larsson, Yngve. “Building a City and a Metropolis: The Planned Development of Stockholm.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28, no. 4 (1962): 220–228.

Lenger, Friedrich. “Urbanisierung als Suburbanisierung: Grundzüge der nordamerikanischen Entwicklung im 20. Jahrhundert” [Urbanisation as suburbanisation: Main features of North American development in the twentieth century]. In Die europäische Stadt im 20. Jahrhundert: Wahrnehmung – Entwicklung – erosion, edited by Friedrich Lenger and Klaus Tenfelde, 437–475. Köln: Böhlau, 2006.

Lewis, Arnold. An Early Encounter with Tomorrow: Europeans, Chicago’s Loop, and the World’s Columbian Exposition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997.

Lewis, Nelson Peter. The Planning of the Modern City: A Review of the Principles Governing City Planning. New York: John Wiley, 1916.

Logemann, Jan. Trams or Tailfins? Public and Private Prosperity in Postwar West Germany and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Lüdtke, Alf, Inge Marssolek, and Adelheid von Saldern. Amerikanisierung: Traum und Alptraum im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts [Americanisation: dream and nightmare in twentieth century Germany]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996.

Lundin, Per. “Mediators of Modernity: Planning Experts and the Making of the ‘Car-Friendly’ City in Europe.” In Urban Machinery. Inside Modern European Cities, edited by Thomas J. Misa and Mikael Hård, 257–279. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008.

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. Miller, J. Marshall, ed. New Life for Cities Around the World: International Handbook on Urban

Renewal. New York: Books International, 1959.

Planning Perspectives 185

Monson, Donald, and Astrid Monson. “Report on Sweden.” Journal of the American Planning Association 15, no. 2 (1949): 33–39.

Mumford, Eric. Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline, 1937–69. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.

Nasr, Joe, and Mercedes Volait. “Introduction: Transporting Planning.” In Urbanism: Imported or Exported? edited by Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait, xi–xxxviii. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 2003.

Nightingale, C. H. “A Tale of Three Global Ghettos: How Arnold Hirsch Helps Us Internationalize U.S. Urban History.” Journal of Urban History 29, no. 3 (2003): 257–271.

Nolen, John. “Basis of German City Planning Procedure: An Example from Düsseldorf.” Landscape Architecture 2, no. 2 (1912): 52–59.

Nolen, John. “The Development of City Planning in Germany.” City Planning 8, no. 4 (1932): 209–215. Orillard, Clément. “Tracing Urban Design’s ‘Townscape’ Origins: Some Relationships Between a British

Editorial Policy and an American Academic Field in the 1950s.” Urban History 36, no. 2 (2009): 284–302.

Parsons, Kermit C. “British and American Community Design: Clarence Stein’s Manhattan Transfer, 1924–74.” Planning Perspectives 7, no. 2 (1992): 181–210.

Peach, Mark. “Wohnfords, or German Modern Architecture and the Appeal of Americanism.” Utopian Studies 8, no. 2 (1997): 48–65.

Pells, Richard. Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture since World War II. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

Reiff, Janice L., and Philip J. Ethington. “Introduction.” Urban History 36, no. 2 (2009): 195–201. Saunier, Pierre-Yves. Another Global City: Historical Explorations into the Transnational Municipal

Moment, 1850-2000. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Saunier, Pierre-Yves. “Atlantic Crosser: John Nolen and the Urban Internationale.” Planning History 21,

no. 1 (1999): 23–31. Schildt, Axel. “Amerikanische Einflüsse auf den Wiederaufbau westeuropäischer Städte nach dem

Zweiten Weltkrieg” [American influences on the reconstruction of Western European cities after the Second World War].” Informationen zur modernen Stadtgeschichte 14, no. 1 (2007): 48–62.

Schocken, Thomas D. “Must Our Cities Remain Ugly?” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 22, no. 4 (1956): 218–226.

Schocken, Thomas D. Planning in Europe. Travel Report, 1959. Schocken File. John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Archives.

Schubert, Dirk. “Die Nachbarschaftsidee im Wandel” [The evolution of the neighbourhood idea]. In “Going West?” Stadtplanung in den USA – gestern und heute, edited by Ursula von Petz, 120–154. Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung 116. Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung, 2004.

Scott, Mel. American City Planning since 1890. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972. Spielvogel, Samuel. “IFHTP: Lisbon 1952.” Journal of the American Planning Association 19, no. 1

(1953): 34–38. Stein, Clarence S. “Stockholm Builds a New Town.” In Proceedings of the Annual National Planning

Conference, 56–64. Boston, MA: American Society of Planning Officials, 1952. Sutcliffe, Anthony. Towards the Planned City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1981. Taylor, Nigel. Urban Planning Theory since 1945. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998. Thuermer, Angus. “Americans Help Rebuild Europe.” The Washington Post (1923–1954), February 23,

1947. Tunnard, Christopher. Man-Made America: Chaos or Control? An Inquiry into Selected Problems of

Design in the Urbanized Landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963. “Urban Studytours Planned for Europe and Latin America.” The American City 64 (1949): 116. Van Beusekom, H. G. “Housing in the Netherlands.” Journal of the American Planning Association 18,

no. 3 (1952): 115–127. Wagner, Martin. “American Versus German City Planning.” The Journal of Land & Public Utility

Economics 22, no. 4 (1946): 321–338.

186 A. Joch

Ward, Stephen V. “Learning from the US: The Americanisation of Western Urban Planning.” In Urbanism. Imported or Exported? edited by Joe Nasr and Mercedes Volait, 83–106. Chichester/ Hoboken: Wiley-Academy, 2003.

Ward, Stephen V. “A Pioneer ‘Global Intelligence Corps’? The Internationalisation of Planning Practice, 1890-1939.” The Town Planning Review 76, no. 2 (2005): 119–141.

Ward, Stephen V. Planning the Twentieth Century City: The Advanced Capitalist World. London: Academy Press, 2002.

Ward, Stephen V. “Re-examining the International Diffusion of Planning.” In Urban Planning in a Changing World. The Twentieth Century Experience, edited by Robert Freestone, 40–60. London: Routledge, 2000.

Planning Perspectives 187